A Better Definition of Design for Multidisciplinary Design
Monologue: It is another long hiatus after my last blog post on documenting fashion shows. Since then, I have been so caught up with assignments. It was hectic as usual, but not until the "sleepless" stage, only if I choose to do so. Semester break starts, had a short quarter-life breakdown, interviewed for a volunteer project, quitted it, read design books, study screen writing, pursue academic thinking in design...much more done, much else to do.
Reviving my blog is one of them
I'm trying to change my writing style (starting from the board game post), which I try to avoid writing articles using first person narratives except for monologues like this. I hope this will help heighten the reading experience. Do comment to let me know where to improve.
Recently I've been asking myself - what else could be done using design. They say design has the ability to change the world, but how? They say design influence politic, but how? They say design thinking could be applied to almost everything, really? They say design is linear, logical thinking rather than creative, really?
...much more question asked, none were answered.
A Definition for All?
Sounds so ambitious, but could the new definition really live up to the next design trend - multidisciplinary design?
Diving into the world of semantics is inevitable, especially when the word "design" is so overused, not only by designer themselves, but artists, businessmen, scientist, programmer, Marvel's super villain, your mom, your neighbour's kid, your carpenter...the list goes on, people across different academic studies had their way of designing things, yet they don't really refer to the same meaning.
When I was entering my foundation years, I thought that design is "creating solution", or if you argue that the aesthetic aspect of design shouldn't be under-looked, then the definition goes "creating beautiful solution". I can't help but thinking butterflies flying above solutions.
The kind of butterfly that solve quite some problems
But is that so? Can we just define "design" around the context of "solution"? How about fashion design which contributes to third-world problem of child slavery? or...say the rise of beauty standard that contributes to a society of low self esteem? Graphic design also contributes to mass advertising which promotes unnecessary visual clutter and the raising of lifestyle cost (Don't think I'll never mock graphic design).
We can't even afford the printing cost of money printing
We could argue that, by creating solution, we as designer solved clients' problem, and in return, we get paid for what we create. Then, as we mentioned, since semantics is inevitable, what is "solution"? When will it be a full stop for design's definition when it contributes to more problem?
Designers from Different Disciplines
For me, saying that design means "creating solution" only explains half of what design could do. Design could achieve more if we offer ourselves another perspective of thinking what is "design".
After spending quite a full semester working closely with fashion design partners, I couldn't really imagine how they are creating solutions. Fashion and architectural designers, for me, seems to pursue artistic vision more than its functional counterpart. Although they've proven to be able to be functional, as Bauhaus-ians will quote "form follow functions", artists are constantly trying to be unique and tend to leave their footprint on design by defining style and new design techniques.
Unlike graphic design, which could be further branched into the artistic form (conceptual graphics and design movements) and functional form (UXUI design and scientific advertising using tested layout methods), not every kind of designer lives up to the definition of creating "solutions" when there is no problem arose. Ironic, ain't it.
Gaining Another Perspective
The moment that led me gain another perspective on definition of design is weird in every kind of level.
It was this movie called No Game No Life : Zero (SPOILER ALERT) where the lead female character (Ex-Machina) who had killed Riku (the male lead)'s family, fell in love with him (and vice versa). After confessing her guilt to the beloved Riku, she roughly mentioned that she had no more purpose of living after her tribe was wiped out by another villain, and it seems like living with Riku to help him fought back the main antagonist somehow "redesigned" her life.
That special conversation struck into my mind, what if, design simply meant "to repurpose"?
Link to movie: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x663scm
I had tested the definition on one of my final project, not only that it doesn't contradict at all, it helped me to dive deeper into research and ask better question, thus solve bigger problem.
CASE STUDY: Board Game Design - Final Project Overview
The board game assignment brief was a lengthy one, well written list of essential game elements that should be created (e.g. packaging, character, instruction manual, game board itself, of course, and etc. If I list them out all then my juniors won't attend classes anymore). Designers are allowed to reinvent existing games, (which I believe is recommended) or recreate an existing game. To test the theory of "design means repurpose", I went for former.
There are several problems that are needed to be addressed with board game - the biggest one which is "is board game still relevant?". I thought that the fate of board game is similar to prints such as newspaper and magazine, ready to be swept away and replaced by social media & native application on smartphones (Even Sinchew Daily lets user to subscribe to SMS news service since a decade ago.) If it is so, is there any more reason that board game should still exist?
A reason for something to exist can take various forms - it can be due to political reasons, trend, ideology (propaganda), market demand (e.g. power banks for short smartphone battery life)...the list goes on. Just as if you think postcard is dead, ME & EU project was created in reaction to Brexit (read more). Fujifilm mass marketed their Instax series to rising Polaroid cult which became sensation among teenagers (adults thought the film days were over and never looked back, they don't see this coming).
Typical millennial kind of stuff - being retro is the new modern
Therefore, just as I thought board game was dead, premium board game still exists either as collection or for hardcore fans of certain gameplay. However, it has become extremely niche.
As I was particularly interested in the game "Ludo" (read more), I thought the gameplay was too simple to be challenging - unlike Snakes and Ladder, where snakes generates disappointment more than ladder could excite us. I researched the latter and found out something fascinating, quote:
"The game is a simple race contest based on sheer luck, and is popular with young children. The historic version had root in morality lessons, where a player's progression up the board represented a life journey complicated by virtues (ladders) and vices (snakes). A commercial version with different morality lessons, Chutes and Ladders, is published by Milton Bradley."
-Snakes and Ladder, Wikipedia-
The idea of teaching virtue via board game sound almost impossible, because most of the time when we play a game, NPC doesn't tell us why it is the way it was designed. Never a person told me the evil mushroom in Mario symbolises evil male genitals that wander around searching for victims. I guess the best way to illustrate the idea of teaching virtue via board game is to get them to read the instruction manual? I'm not sure, but it common for video games (or film) to include short monologue after gameplay ends on the hidden event occurs/meaning hidden behind the game.
The only time when semiotic is straightforward
It also came to my knowledge that parents hardly communicate with kids, if there is a game to let them interact and teach virtues to their kid, why not repurpose board game as a tool to teach the function of religion and law enforcement?
Things exist for reason
It really does, and things become meaningful when we assign meaning to it (Read: semiotic). In design, we are thought that things shouldn't exist because they look beautiful, everything should be accompanied but "why"
Thus, there is also a saying that design is met by achieving simplicity. Just if you think Rothko's painting were as dull as my lame joke, and all art should be disposed because you don't find them tasteful, then all celebrities should retire, because they create unnecessary body figure standards.
Writing this with laptop on my bouncy tummy angrily
Great design don't always solve problems, it could just be an activity of meaning-making (such as Milton Glaser's I Love New York logo). You and I might be baffled with the existence of Avant Garde fashion garment wore by starved boneless models of fashion runway, but they exist for reasons we don't know, and perhaps for reasons that we will not wish to know.
