Appropriate Response (part 01): Feedback
The video above is a reference to the Whitney Museum’s visual identity, as designed by Experimental Jetset, and critiqued in this article by Modes of Criticism. Although the identity does work as a flexible visual system, the article does point out that the conceptual ground on which it stands is quite thin. By making bold claims which can encompass everything and nothing, the identity loses any sense of power or voice. However, I would say that it isn’t always necessary for a system to have a high or complex concept behind it. It’s ok for things to just to look good and work, so perhaps the misstep here was making any bold claims in the first place.
What are interesting tensions or contradictions in your thinking/understanding about computational thinking and generative design? Something about the role of the designer/author?
I think there are two aspects to this - affordabilities vs restraints and designer vs computer. Thinking computationally about design problems can be really effective because it makes you devise a system which can ‘solve’ most problems that the design prompt will throw at it. Whether this is a grid system for a publication, an identity hierarchy for applications, or ux design for an interface. However, working specifically with generative design means that some aspects of design are relatively easy and very powerful - like opening up visual processes to be modified easily through some kind of data input. It can, however, also be extremely restrictive in other ways, such as simply designing any kind of asset, like a simple logo. Because of this I don’t think computational thinking should be applied to a strictly generative workflow, but rather that it can be incorporated into traditional design workflows to handle certain aspects. Computational thinking is the overall approach, generative design is just one of the tools to implement it. Then there’s designer vs computer. There’s an interesting interplay here because of that wildcard - unpredictability. It sounds obvious, but the interaction between the designer and the system they are trying to build really is open to unexpected results throughout the iterative process. This can be detrimental when you are trying to create something very specific and it just isn’t working the way you want it to (the bane of all programmers), but if you’re open to a degree of divergence from the initial idea, then reacting to results along the way - be they because you didn’t anticipate correctly or just made a human error - can lead to very interesting places.
About modifying rules and processes vs. outcomes. Are there problems in computational thinking (pattern recognition and decomposition etc.)?
This is a bit vague, but I would say that a strictly computational approach is not a one-size fits all approach. When there is a very specific and defined outcome then often thinking computationally isn’t a good fit, and to be fair this is not a small part of design practice. Not every problem has enough parts to be broken down or for patterns to emerge. But I would say that my interest lies in systems - in languages, structures, and hierarchies - that can adapt and evolve to meet different demands. Every system needs to be updated eventually otherwise it will fail.
What givens would you question about generative design?
I think I would question the given that generative design is an aesthetic. Tim raised an interesting point that he believes that what generative design looks like is actually an obstacle to overcome because people associate it with a particular kind of design. It’s true that it is a very powerful tool to generate certain forms of visuals, but I think this is just the tip of the iceberg. Incorporated within a wider workflow, I think it is an immensely unexplored territory in design. And I mean in traditional, commercial design practice, not just academic, artistic, or experiential design.
Where does your position or work differ from other designers or thinkers?
Honestly, I have no idea. Perhaps it’s my focus on modality - I like to think about medium, using what’s best to communicate what I need to communicate. I think of myself as a communication designer. I’m not interested in a particular area (this is somewhat false) but I am interested in processes and methodologies. The how is more interesting than the what.
It’s interesting that many of the reasons for using systems in your points is that it improves working processes and reduces labour - better for design practice in a sense. Also about taking control of your own tools to make them as well as the work.
Really good to see a physical booklet - and an interesting choice of form. Instruction manuals being quite materially uncomplicated, often not even designed, they’re kind of a default, semi-immaterial holder for a process, or for important diagrams.
I think the final point that not working in systems doesn’t correspond to an engagement with communication networks or behaviour - this a is a really interesting proposition (and provocation!) that I would personally love to hear more about.
