1. Introduction:
The concepts and definitions of design have, in fact, been constantly being overturned in my mind; however, through this continuous process of overturning and reconstructing, a distinct personal perspective is gradually taking shape. Even during my undergraduate studies, I underwent a constant process of self-revision; this can be understood as a process of alternative learning. Throughout this process, I subconsciously disciplined myself to continually elevate the level of my thinking, approaching and reflecting on everything from a macro perspective. This process of elevation has enabled me to gain a clearer understanding of the relationships between individuals, events and objects, thereby allowing me to accurately identify my own direction and areas of focus.
2. Overview of Theory:
The so-called ‘subjective, generalised theory of design’ is, for the time being, entirely a matter of personal views and insights; let us consider the matter from the highest possible perspective. All design and design works to date have been either problem- or self-expression-oriented; it is therefore clear that the design process we must undertake is one of achieving these two objectives, whilst simultaneously determining the means by which we will attain them. Consequently, the optimal goal-oriented process is the very embodiment of the good ideas and designs to which we aspire. If we consider the scale of all individual entities to encompass both micro- and macro-units — understanding these as molecular and elemental units, respectively — this implies that the essence of a designer lies in the process of solving problems or expressing viewpoints through the optimal or most effective methods of combining units across multiple dimensions (in all dimensions).
Let me give a relatively concrete example: taking product design as an illustration, in the process of resolving or meeting users’ problems and needs, there is a subconscious process of creation at work; that is, we seek to fulfil this objective through tangible, concrete objects (products), whilst the realisation of this process involves combining functional components or integrating resources through optimised craftsmanship and usage. Moving to the micro-level, all specific branches of design essentially follow this principle. Take the Earth’s usable resources, for instance: from a certain perspective, they are fixed and finite; in this process, the designer acts as an overall resource manager, carrying out a goal-oriented process of combination through their own objective understanding and subjective judgement. However, whilst many designers may not have broken things down to such the smallest units, the very act of using specific equipment and materials is, in itself, a process of resource integration.
(Original auxiliary illustration 01)
3. Rethinking:
This naturally raises the question: following standard design logic, do we possess a certain subconscious tendency that leads us to achieve optimal results within a narrow scope, whilst rendering our approach excessively redundant and complex within a broader design context? Against the backdrop of this subjective, broad-based theory of design, does this imply that designers who truly possess design capabilities no longer have clearly defined disciplinary boundaries, but instead absorb knowledge from diverse fields to arrive at optimal, broad-spectrum solutions (that is, the optimal combination of resources), rather than restricting their thinking to a certain extent and engaging in blind creation or waste?
(Original auxiliary illustration 02)
I still remember a question a friend of mine asked me offhand several years ago: ‘How do you interpret your undergraduate degree subject (Product Design)?’
At the time, I replied that it depended first and foremost on how one understood the term ‘product’. In my view, a ‘product’ is not limited to any specific form; anything from the design of a single button to a piece of heavy machinery, or even a service-oriented enterprise, can be termed a product. As long as it solves a problem and reasonably meets a need, and can subsequently acquire the characteristics of a product through commercial means, why shouldn’t it be called a product? Perhaps this is also why I chose this degree programme; for in the field of design, I do not believe there is a clear hierarchical relationship between the so-called sub-disciplines — they are gradually becoming more equal and blurred.
Today’s discussion on design has, to a certain extent, clarified the meaning of these four characters for the time being; yet, at the same time, my own direction no longer seems to be something that can be summarised by these four characters alone. For me personally, this is a record and expression of my thoughts at this stage; regardless of whether it is objectively accurate or not, it is a process of iterative reflection.
Designer,
Explorer,
Resource operator.
*The ownership of the project and the information belongs to the individual only for communication and sharing. Do not copy or use it for commercial purposes.