The Design and the Designer

It is good to be back in touch with old friends and students who are all fired up about Design with a capital D. I have been reading the blogs of some of my young friends who are starting their careers as Designers. Recently I have been reading Manjiri Joglekar’s blog. She posted many interesting thoughts and observations. This series of posts are prompted by what I read in her blog.

It took me twenty years to understand what is Design and finally I now have the arrogance to call myself a Designer. In the next few posts, I plan to write something about what I understood, and may be give some advice to young and upcoming designers.

As a designer one has to deal with the Law of 2 all the time. Law of 2 is one of the most fundamental laws of the universe. Using this law, you can divide the entire creation into two different things which together make up the ‘universe’. For example, you can use Law of 2 and divide the universe into Creator and the Creation, Male and Female, Potential and Probability, Siva and Sakti, System fo Enequiry and Object of Enquiry, Plants and Animals, Humanity and the rest, Mass and Energy, Stars and Planets, Subject and Object, Form and Function, Usability and Functionality, Interface and Implementation, Boss and Subordinate, Rich and Poor, Believers and Agnostics, Republicans and Democrats, Democracy and Dictatorship, Intellect and Emotion, Cost and Performance – and what ever else is your fancy.

This law is a designer’s power and it is also the designer’s curse. Mastery over it is mandatory for success. It is your power because it is the most fundamental instrument you use to produce an appliance. It is your curse, because you have to understand the ‘unity’ that existed in the universe until you applied this unforgiving knife and mercilessly cut up the creation into two parts. If you don’t understand that unity, you will put your knife at the wrong place – and all the King’s men and his army cannot put Humpty-Dumpty together again. Law of 2 produces an interface.

Law of 2 also produces Law of 3, Law of 4, Law of 5 and Law of 8. A very brief description of the other laws is probably not out of place here.

Law of 3 deals with Functional Completeness. The concept of trinity is very old in religious, philosophical, and esoteric literature and systems of thought. In Hindu philosophy – there is a concept of Creation, Maintenance and Destruction, there is a concept of Tri-Gunas – Satvic, Rajasic and Tamasic and so on. Similarly, Christianity has a concept of Trinity. Most governments today are organized as a form of trinity – the President, Parliament and the Judiciary. In computing systems – there are architectures called Model, View and Controllers which are the most popular way of constructing large, complex systems. Most of the human endeavour is divided into art, craft and engineering. This law is used when ever you want to do “functional division”. Law of 3 produces structure.

Law of 4 deals with “spatial completeness” and “knowledge representation”. There are four Vedas, four sciences – physics, chemistry, biology and social sciences, there are four major directions – North, South, East and West. There are four major relationships – Spouse, Parents, Children and In-Laws. Basically, you use Law of 4 to organize the world. Law of 4 produces Organization.

By now, I am sure you get the drift. Law of 5 deals with materials and how those materials interact with each other to produce new materials and functions. For example, application of this law produces the five fundamental elements, the five primary organs of perception, the five primary functions of a human being and so on. Law of 5 produces Processes

It is a bit complex to explain Law of 8. Very briefly, Law of 8 is the law of integration. You put together all your divisions back together using Law of 8 to produce unified whole. Law of 8 thus produces integration. But, this is right now out of syllabus. This is not easy to explain, you have to internalize it on your own.

As a designer – your most fundamental concepts that you manipulate all the time are therefore – Interface, Structure, Organization and Process. Do you see an application of Law of 4 already working here?

Suppose you are asked to design a corporation – what you produce is an interface, a structure, an organization scheme and the related processes.

Suppose you are asked to produce a household electronics product – what you produce is its interface, its structure, its organization and the basic processes.

Suppose you have to design your own family and make it work as a harmonious unit – you have to think of its interface, its structure, its organization and the processes in built in it. Any problem in the family could be explained in terms of one of these four ‘elements of design’.

All laws of design apply equally well to ourselves. As a designer – you must first design the structure of your own consciousness. How do you do that?

You must learn how to interface with the rest of the world. If you attend an interview, and you tell them that your work is essentially a creative process – it will make people very nervous. Most design students that I interacted with place a lot of unnecessary emphasis on creativity. They somehow think that because their work is very creative, they are somehow “a special brand of people” and they expect the world to give them some special respect.

The world doesn’t care – your employer wants results. They don’t care whether the process you use is creative process or whether you have some sort of “manual” from which you cut and paste. Creativity is totally your problem.

Creativity and out of box thinking are very unreliable as far as the rest of the world is concerned. We are all conditioned to associate creativity with poets, artists and the like. And, we also think that there is no way such a function can be called on demand reliably every time. So your employer thinks that there is no way they can ask you to work to a dead line, there is no way to assess your performance, and that your quality of work will be very inconsistent.

They are right. Until you can master your own “creative process” and have the ability to summon its services when ever you want – you are standing on a very slippery ground. If our discipline lacks a mathematical underpinning, the rest of the world cannot be held responsible for that.

Instead of getting high on creativity bit, instead you should tell the rest of the world that your work involves synthesis and systems thinking. Tell them that instead of using the usual analysis and deductive modes of problem solving – you depend on synthesis, integration and problem identification. Tell them instead of thinking in terms of causes and effects, you approach the problem in terms of associations and relationships. You may stand a better chance of getting that job.

To be continued….
There are a total of about more than 30 articles I planned in this series. Eventually, I will complete this series. But , be patient. I am very greatful for any comments, feedback, suggestions. All your contributions will be duely acknowledged.