On Jun 23, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Dan Saffer wrote:
I'd say the last thing we'd want to do is put the Artist/Designer
back into her high-tower, preparing wondrous creations to unleash
upon a grateful and waiting one-to-many monologic world.
Why is this not a valid means of design? I'll let Andrei and Jim
Leftwich do their thing here, but I'll point to Jared's recent
keynote:
<http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/2008/04/23/ia-summit-keynote-journey-to-the-center-of-design/
>
The irony of this line of discussion is that good designers never need
permission to do what they know to be good design, regardless if they
are told not to act like the high and mighty designer sitting in their
ivory tower. They just do it regardless. So it effectively makes the
discussion moot for the good designer.
People seem to want some sort of guaranteed protection from bad
designers, when in fact they already have one: Don't use or pay for
what they design.
I think this line from Paul Rand speaks eloquently to this point:
"Meaningful design, design of quality and wit, is no small
achievement, even in an environment in which good design is
understood, appreciated, and ardently accepted, and in which profit is
not the only motive. At best, work that has any claim to distinction
is the exception, even under the most ideal circumstances. After all,
our epoch can boast of only one A.M. Cassandre."
Outside of this, I've always wondered what "Hamlet" would have been
like had Shakespeare been forced to write it with a team of
playwrights assigned by the Queen.
--
Andrei Herasimchuk
Principal, Involution Studios
innovating the digital world
e. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
c. +1 408 306 6422
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
