In these TED Talks, some of the world’s greatest designers share their creative process. Design and production are intertwined in many creative professional careers, meaning problem-solving is part of execution and the reverse.
In some cases, it may be unnecessary or impractical to expect a designer with a broad multidisciplinary knowledge required for such designs to also have a detailed specialized knowledge of how to produce the product. Many overlapping methods and processes can be seen when comparing Product design , Industrial design and Engineering The American Heritage Dictionary defines design as: “To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent,” and “To formulate a plan”, and defines engineering as: “The application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and economical structures, machines, processes, and systems.”. 34 35 Both are forms of problem-solving with a defined distinction being the application of “scientific and mathematical principles”. However, research and knowledge are brought into the design process through the judgment and common sense of designers – by designers “thinking on their feet” – more than through the predictable and controlled process stipulated by the rational model.
Redesign – any or all stages in the design process repeated (with corrections made) at any time before, during, or after production. Kees Dorst and Judith Dijkhuis, both designers themselves, argued that “there are many ways of describing design processes” and discussed “two basic and fundamentally different ways”, 9 both of which have several names. Substantial disagreement exists concerning how designers in many fields, whether amateur or professional, alone or in teams, produce designs.
This set of postcards from architecture archives was produced for the exhibition Modern Design and Architecture in the Arab World: the Beginnings of a Project, held in Beirut at Villa Salem (Otium) in May 2013. By gathering, sorting, and making its resources available to the public and the research community, ACA is aiming to serve as a platform for diffusing documentation and information about architecture and the urban environment in the Arab World. Founded in 2008 in Beirut, the Arab Center for Architecture (Association for the preservation and dissemination of modern Arab built heritage) is a non-profit organization addressing modern urban design, architecture, design, and planning in the Arab world.
Architects obsess over the ideas that they are embodying in their buildings. The idea of decoration as decadent is particularly ludicrous in the age of monumental design projects. The belief that buildings should look like their times” rather than buildings should look like the buildings in the place where they are being built” leads toward a hodge-podge, with all the benefits that come from a distinct and orderly local style being destroyed by a few buildings that undermine the coherence of the whole.
In fact, everyday good architecture should not even be about the building, it should be about the people. Frank Gehry designs his work using CAD software, then someone else has to go out and actually build it. But that rupture means that architecture becomes something imposed upon people. Unless they are an uber-wealthy client, users of buildings rarely have much input into the design process.
The physical environment in which we live and work, however, is ubiquitous and inescapable; when it comes to architecture, it is nigh-impossible for people to simply avoid the things they hate and seek out the things they like. But architecture is very different from other forms of art: people who hate Beethoven aren’t obligated to listen to it from 9-5 every weekday, and people who hate the Transformers series aren’t obligated to watch it every night before bed. And since such things can be guaranteed to produce almost no return on investment, they had to go. There was a good reason why, historically, religious architecture has been the most concerned with beauty for beauty’s sake; the more time is spent elegantly decorating a cathedral, the more it serves its intended function of celebrating God’s glory, whereas the more time is spent decorating an office building, the less money will be left over for the developer.
In the debate, Alexander lambasted Eisenman for wanting buildings that are prickly and strange,” and defended a conception of architecture that prioritizes human feeling and emotion. This idea, that architecture should try to be honest” rather than beautiful,” is well expressed in an infamously heated 1982 debate at the Harvard School of Design between two architects, Peter Eisenman and Christopher Alexander. With only a few exceptions, such as New Classical architecture’s mixed successes in reviving Greco-Roman forms, and Postmodern architecture’s irritating attempts to parody them, no modern buildings include the kind of highly complex painting, woodwork, ironwork, and sculpture that characterized the most strikingly beautiful structures of prior eras.
They should be. See also: the amazing lobby of the Guardian Building in Detroit —this is Art Deco, the last truly impressive movement in architecture. This mindset is best exemplified by the French architect Le Corbusier, who famously characterized the house as a machine for living.” Corbusier’s ideas about planning and design were still taken seriously even when he proposed his Plan Voisin” for Paris, which would have involved demolishing half of the city north of the Seine and replacing it with about a dozen enormous uniform skyscrapers. At the dawn of the 20th century, American architect Louis Sullivan proclaimed the famous maxim that form follows function.” Even though Sullivan’s own buildings were often highly ornate, adorned with elaborate Art Nouveau ironwork and Celtic-inspired masonry, form follows function” was instantly misinterpreted as a call for stark utilitarian simplicity.
Conservatives who critique public housing may have easily-proven ulterior motives, but why so many on the left are wedded to defending unpopular schools of architectural and urban design is less immediately obvious. For example, how do we explain why, in the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower tragedy in London, more conservative commentators were calling for more comfortable and home-like public housing , while left-wing writers staunchly defended the populist spirit of the high-rise apartment building, despite ample evidence that the majority of people would prefer not to be forced to live in or among such places?