1/26/2010 Required Reading Reflection: “Form and Distinction,” by Ole Thyssen

Guggenheim Bilbao, deigned by Frank Gehry

I was struck by Thyssen’s assertions that “as a rule, the design process is more one of reworking than creating from scratch” (036). I agree that something cannot be created out of nothing, that every idea has inspiration behind it, and that every designer comes with her own set of cultural preconceptions about the world that invariably affect her work. It is this social construction of design that interests me; the idea that social forces both in a designer’s past and future are unavoidable in the process of creation. All designers, regardless of whether they are imitating a past style or rejecting all previous conventions, are working within a system that contains them and cannot be avoided. Likewise, it does not matter whether a designer is appealing to the masses or abandoning aesthetics altogether in an effort to be nonconformist, both actions can only exist if the framework of previous design existed. There can be nothing new without everything old.

This idea of the artists was interestingly described by Thyssen when he explains that although many “designers have attempted to break out of the glass bubble, their breakaway from art occurs within the art system and is perceived as art” (045). Although this art system cultivates creativity and nonconformity, it nevertheless is limiting in the sense that it defines the artist’s identity, permits her to be one on thing and create only art, regardless or her desires. Here, we must not only question what it means to be an artist and how one is able to claim the title, but also the importance of the spectator. If being an artists means creating art even if that is against their intention that it is a non-artist, a spectator that ultimately must determine art and design from everything else. Therefore, the art system, as it stands depends as much on spectators as it does on artists.

This dependence on the spectator, or the consumer, seems especially true in regard to design where the design product is not form alone but function. Beauty (or at least visual creativity) cannot stand on its own to create a truly successful design. Frank Gehry design for the Guggenheim Bilbao would not have been implemented if his design had been structurally unsound. Arne Jacobsen's Egg Chair would not have been put into production if it broke as soon as someone sat in it. Therefore, designers must appeal to both peoples’ aesthetic tastes and their demand for functionality and efficiency, even when these two expectations are not necessarily compatible. Here then, it is quite clear how restricted designers are, how dependent they are upon society even when their designs are efforts to change or even reject the society they live in.

Design may, at its most basic, be the human effort to change the environment, a desire that has always existed. Nevertheless, as natural as it may feel, it is still just as socially constructed as any other aspect of human life and experience.