What is design?

I asked this question on Twitter and have gotten some very interesting answers. What is even more interesting to me is how varied they are. Many of them include the aesthetics of a design and that got me curious to see if beauty is part of design to you? Does great design equal beauty from an aesthetic standpoint?

Design is all about aesthetics: crafting the appearance and arrangement of an object to aid in its function. Beauty is a separate, but related, question. Buckminster Fuller put it this way:

When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty, but when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong.

In other words, beauty is not the object of good design, but rather a consequence of it.

I like when it is put into those terms. I like to think about nature whenever I ask myself about design. There are beautiful creatures, plants and structures all over the world. If you consider a plant ugly for example consider its purpose and how it survives. Is it designed to survive perfectly in its environment? If so, isn't that considered beautiful design?

I responded: "Design is solving a problem as awesomely as possible."

It's a simple way to say it but design is about solving a particular problem and is not a word describing free range creativity. The 'as awesomely as possible' part does reference something about aesthetics I think but certainly not to a specific style. The aesthetic part is more suggesting that the solution to a design problem be considered in an aesthetic sense as well as in the sense of if it solves the original problem.

Design is a process of questions and answers.

Design is not the end product, the end product is a result of the process of design.

Design is not how it looks, it is how it functions. Of course, how it looks has a part to play in how something functions, but how it looks is only a part, not everything.

Granted, your average designer will disagree with me.

Hi everyone,

My first post here.

I find it perplexing that I can design without there being an accurate definition of what design actually is. Is what I am doing actually design?

Design is art and business. Design is art and science. Design is communication. Design involves problem-solving with creativity. Design is form following function. (not always true*) Design is substance over style. (not always true*) Design is aesthetics and functionality.

Tibor Kalman said: 'After fifteen or twenty years in the profession I discovered that design is just a language and the real issue is what you see that language to do'

There are many varied and valid interpretations of what design is, but the problem is merging it all into one (is this fair?)

How important is it that we are able to define what design actually is? Do you think it is even possible to define it? Why is it so vague to define anyway?

I think we have to define it ourselves, we each have our own interpretation of what design is or what it should be.

But, in the end, it will always remain as something rather vague and general, rather than something very clear and specific. Or do some people think that it isn't vague at all?

I think that design is about function. But is it? That's how I have been designing so far. But how should I be designing? Without an agreed universal denifition of the term 'design' I can only go by my own interpretation of what I believe design is.

Am I overthinking or overcomplicating the issue?

Thank you Scrivs for the brilliant site!

*I see David Carson as a graphic designer too, some may say that he an artist rather than a designer, but I believe that we shouldn't 'mistake legibility for communication' like he said. Should this be another thread?

I found this site by Matthew Griffin who shares his view on "what is design." I found it very interesting myself, I thought I would share it with you.

http://mirificampress.com/permalink/video_part1

He seems to know what he is talking about and has some other interesting videos too, if you want to check them out.

I should mention that this discussion spawned an article a while back where I go into more detail about what is design to me.

If your functionality is extremelly valuable and have no competition, then "form follows function".

But if the above statement does not apply (for web design, that would be - sadly - vast majority), then beauty is a selling point; thus, beauty become functional.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Interesting. See, I view design as a communications tool. Done right, it does it's part to help deliver the message.

A well designed chair says "sit". A well designed website says "here's what you were looking for".

Design is often expressive, so beauty is often part of design, but I don't believe that good design is beautiful for the sake of it.

This can clearly be seen in "cool looking" sites that fail to successfully communicate anything other then "I told you I was cool".