This has made me realize that my ranting about the philosophical idea of the human soul isn’t uncommon for designers discussing their work and how it relates to others’ views and ideas. When starting to discuss what good design isn’t George Nelson describes what good design is: “…a manifestation of the capacity of the human spirit to transcend its limitations.” This idea of design being a representation to the extent of a human spirit’s ability to go beyond their restrictions intrigues me as it makes me think about who wants these representations of the ascent beyond the limits set for the designer. Generally, designers don’t need these embodiments of the other designer’s ascent. Is it those who tried to break limits of their spirit and failed or is it those who don’t feel they need to break their own and can get the same effects from another’s efforts? Is it simply those who need the design who get them or do they end up among those who do not know who created it and why?
Designers explain away aesthetics because laymen don’t understand it. Nelson talks about stating something is functional or more functional a certain way was easier than describing something as an aesthetic choice. Today most people have heard the term aesthetics and talk about it like it’s a common word, at least in my experience. Given the amount of knowledge we have at our fingertips today, it’d be kind of hard to explain away aesthetic choices as functional ones. The client or whoever is being described a partial lie about the reason for doing said thing can simply look up what terms you used and find the errors to the logic rather quickly if they understand how to look stuff up.