Why is defining design so confusing for designers? Do that many of us not even know what we’re doing, or is it that we’re just trying to be all things to all people? Whatever the reason, it seems that each designer who weighs in on the matter has a slightly (or vastly) different take on the subject.

Usually, our different definitions vary according to little more than emphasis. For instance, one will say that design is largely about communication, while another will suggest that design is mostly concerned with problem solving. Most can agree that the one does not exclude the other. And there are often other similar subtle points of debate, but this is not really what concerns me.

What does concern me is how some “designers” mistake their self-indulgent artistic efforts for design and fail, or are simply ill-equipped, to notice their error. Time and time again I’ll find a portfolio site for a self-proclaimed designer, only to discover that there is no example of design in their portfolio. Instead, I find art—subjective conceptual works that exemplify the artist’s vision or inner voice. Hate to have to point this out, but that’s not design.

Even the well-respected designer, Milton Glaser, has said recently, “I became a designer, but like many of us, I’ve always struggled with the relationship of Art and Design, and the question of what precisely separated the two activities.” Cripes! It’s downright disappointing to read irresponsible, milquetoast blather like this. So much for the old guard passing valuable wisdom to their successors.

After much reflection, I’ve come to the conclusion that this condition in our community exists because design is perhaps not what designers learn in school. In school we learn artistry—its fundamentals, components, and mechanisms. There we learn how to exploit human perception and response to affect communication by various means and with different media. We each learn how to interpret the world through the filter of our own unique lens. This is the useful craft we repurpose in design efforts. But the fundamentals and foundational concerns of design—responsibility, objectivity, cultural/contextual constraints, and the circumvention of our own egos …these are perhaps not part of the curriculum we’re subjected to.

And it’s showing.

So now I wonder how many university design programs are actually teaching a design curriculum in addition to their art curriculum. I wonder how many of these institutions actually grasp the difference. I wonder how many design professors are preparing their students to be relevant, effective and successful in the professional design ranks. I wonder how many new design graduates understand what design is and how it differs from art.

So let me join the chorus of those describing and defining design …for the benefit of those new design graduates. I’ll start by defining what design is not: Design is not self-indulgent. Design is not about what I feel or about my view of the world. Design is not my masturbatory effort at conceiving and making a cool poster that presents my view of something.

Rather, design is more about effectively articulating someone else’s view of something. It’s about following specific criteria within specific (and unspecified) constraints to produce specific results—often within a host of contexts. If you can’t do this, you’re of no use to your clients and you can’t continue to get paid. I wonder if they teach that in school.

Filed under: Design, Web Development