On Doing

I think Stanford is doing a good job in trying to take a process out of the chaos of design work.  Observation, insights, design actions, brainstormin, etc. However, as in any other synthesis effort, those things that are hard to talk-about are being left outside. I can easily think of two that are, in my opinion, pillars of design work. I mentioned them in the title of this post.

image link: http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/4/4a/Plato-raphael.jpg

Rhetoric, because design, if considered in a creative way, is always anticipating the future. Therefore, it can’t pretend to be presented in a traditional way where out of an argument or an observation comes a solution. The designer is trying to forecast the future, and must therefore convince the rest of the people that this is how the future will be shaped. This is critic.

Intuitiveness, as described by Colin Rowe. Many have tried to create design systems where the results are consequence of an structured set of rules and procecess (constructivism, modernism, classicism, etc.)…as many as have tried, as many have failed. Because a design work, since related to art, is the result of an extremely complex set of relations that makes sense in the head of the designer and in the head of the user. And the complexity is so huge that it can only be tackled by using a “sensibilized intuition”. That is, an intuition nourished by a deep understanding on the nature of your own work and the culture you’re inserted into.

Anyone can say about this post, “in your argument, from “the extreme complexity of design work” (which maybe true or not) one doesn’t follows that intuition is the way to tackle it”…I’m sure you not. It’s just my intuition.