Title: Science for Designers: The Meaning of Complexity
Context: Design is surely an art. But it’s also a science. Did I just blow your mind?
Synopsis: [WARNING: THE LINKED ARTICLE CONTAINS HIGHBROW CRITICAL ARCHITECTURAL PROSE. READ AT YOUR OWN RISK.] Oh I do love architectural criticism. What with its run-on sentences, arcane vocabulary and disjointed academic prose. But the author makes several compelling points regarding the dichotomy of design vis-a-vis it’s relationship to the symbiotic mindscapes of the artistic and the scientific (see, I can speak in jibberish too!) The point being – if you dig hard enough to find it – is that design has fallen prey to its own artistic conceit in many cases, ignoring its empirical lineage in favor of Dionysian egotism (snobbish reference to the classics? Double points!) The culminative (making up words is perfectly fine) theory is this; the real designer ignores complexity (for which science is particularly suited to untangling) at his – and more importantly – his user’s, own peril. So embrace the sinistral (look it up) hemisphere of your grey matter and embrace science as the rational yang to your artistic yin.
Best Bit: “This is a distorted artistic heritage of design, not at all about understanding systems and their emergent properties, which has come to a frontal collision with its scientific heritage.”
Leave a Reply