3 ms·

That's one opinion to hold if you are cynical enough or young enough not to remember stuff changing over time. For example, if you are old enough to witness th

by mrtksn 3y ago

That's one opinion to hold if you are cynical enough or young enough not to remember stuff changing over time. For example, if you are old enough to witness the transition you can remember how much a fresh breath of air was moving away from the clutter and pertinaciousness of post modernist interior design into the functional and comfortable minimalism then only to go the the next phase seeking some more cozy spaces once the minimalism begin feeling impersonal and cold and then the designers remember how cool and inspiring some stuff from the 60s and 70s were.

robertlagrant 3y ago
Aren't you sort of saying the same thing? The pursit of change for its own sake, rather than striving towards a (relatively) objective improvement does look a bit fruitless.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  No, not at all. The styles don't change of its own sake, they change as people come up with ideas on how to address the problems of the last one. Each iteration solves something only to create its own problems that will be solved by the next iteration. Also, people revisit old ideas all the time. Problem solving chain is only one force, there's also the desire force. As time change, people desire different things. At one point people may desire order if the world is too chaotic only to desire freedom later on when the world becomes too strict and rigid when trying to get things into order and all that reflects into the design of everything. Another force would be economy and technology, old ideas that didn't work because the tech wasn't there yet are revisited or designs can be optimised for cost when times are tough. Tiny demons carved by hand on the facade are nice but when the demand for just getting into the plane at the cheapest cost is strong you can't make you airports to look like 1800s train stations.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > The styles don't change of its own sake, they change as people come up with ideas on how to address the problems of the last one. I don't think this bit is true, or at least I don't believe these are "problems" being solved, when it comes to art. There are no problems, only changes. That's why being derivative is bad. It's a drive for change for its own sake.
    - mrtksn 3y ago
      Well, design is not something that exists on its own sake. Just like with UI design in computers, product or architectural/interior design solves problems. Aesthetics is a component of it but, function and communication is too. People want big windows, designers figure it out. People want cheap places that can be reconfigured for function, designers figure it out, people want cheap sunglasses and designers figure it out, people want watches that makes them look serious and designers figure it out, - you get the idea. They do all that within the framework of technology and materials and as the tech and materials availability change they find new solutions. BTW, this idea of "designers just make eye candy" is something I keep seeing in the AI Hype train folks. They enter a prompt and the AI generates an image of, let's say a chair that looks cool at first glance and they think that AI is ready to take away the design jobs. They are deeply mistaken because they have no idea what the designers actually do and what it takes to design a product and no, it's not about coming up with something to sit on and looks of a particular type, out of the blue.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        > They enter a prompt and the AI generates an image of, let's say a chair that looks cool at first glance and they think that AI is ready to take away the design jobs Well, I'd say this is wrong, but not for that reason. The advances you list are all really engineering and materials science advances. Once an engineer shows you how to design a skyscraper using a framed tubes, you can draw 100 of them. AI might be able to do the drawing, but it probably won't be doing the structural engineering / materials science in the same ways.
        mrtksn 3y ago
        It works the other way around, the designers design and the engineers are figuring out how to build it. Unless of course you can shove it down the throat of the customers, then you can have engineers make you an apparatus and call it a product. The designers usually have some understanding on what's possible and they work with the engineers to tweak their design for feasibility. No one cares about the 100 hundred drawings of skyscrapers. The soviets did it with the commie blocks, although practical its nowhere nearly as desirable as having a neighbourhood designed by people thinking beyond structural engineering.

by mrtksn 3y ago

robertlagrant 3y ago

Aren't you sort of saying the same thing? The pursit of change for its own sake, rather than striving towards a (relatively) objective improvement does look a bit fruitless.

mrtksn 3y ago
No, not at all. The styles don't change of its own sake, they change as people come up with ideas on how to address the problems of the last one. Each iteration solves something only to create its own problems that will be solved by the next iteration. Also, people revisit old ideas all the time. Problem solving chain is only one force, there's also the desire force. As time change, people desire different things. At one point people may desire order if the world is too chaotic only to desire freedom later on when the world becomes too strict and rigid when trying to get things into order and all that reflects into the design of everything. Another force would be economy and technology, old ideas that didn't work because the tech wasn't there yet are revisited or designs can be optimised for cost when times are tough. Tiny demons carved by hand on the facade are nice but when the demand for just getting into the plane at the cheapest cost is strong you can't make you airports to look like 1800s train stations.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > The styles don't change of its own sake, they change as people come up with ideas on how to address the problems of the last one. I don't think this bit is true, or at least I don't believe these are "problems" being solved, when it comes to art. There are no problems, only changes. That's why being derivative is bad. It's a drive for change for its own sake.
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    Well, design is not something that exists on its own sake. Just like with UI design in computers, product or architectural/interior design solves problems. Aesthetics is a component of it but, function and communication is too. People want big windows, designers figure it out. People want cheap places that can be reconfigured for function, designers figure it out, people want cheap sunglasses and designers figure it out, people want watches that makes them look serious and designers figure it out, - you get the idea. They do all that within the framework of technology and materials and as the tech and materials availability change they find new solutions. BTW, this idea of "designers just make eye candy" is something I keep seeing in the AI Hype train folks. They enter a prompt and the AI generates an image of, let's say a chair that looks cool at first glance and they think that AI is ready to take away the design jobs. They are deeply mistaken because they have no idea what the designers actually do and what it takes to design a product and no, it's not about coming up with something to sit on and looks of a particular type, out of the blue.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > They enter a prompt and the AI generates an image of, let's say a chair that looks cool at first glance and they think that AI is ready to take away the design jobs Well, I'd say this is wrong, but not for that reason. The advances you list are all really engineering and materials science advances. Once an engineer shows you how to design a skyscraper using a framed tubes, you can draw 100 of them. AI might be able to do the drawing, but it probably won't be doing the structural engineering / materials science in the same ways.
      - mrtksn 3y ago
        It works the other way around, the designers design and the engineers are figuring out how to build it. Unless of course you can shove it down the throat of the customers, then you can have engineers make you an apparatus and call it a product. The designers usually have some understanding on what's possible and they work with the engineers to tweak their design for feasibility. No one cares about the 100 hundred drawings of skyscrapers. The soviets did it with the commie blocks, although practical its nowhere nearly as desirable as having a neighbourhood designed by people thinking beyond structural engineering.