Today in design seminar, Dick Buchanan defined the reasons that make designers valuable.
- Whole/part: designers look at the whole in relation to the parts; they see the big picture
- Bring to life/creativity: designers have a passion for making things
- Comfortable with ambiguity: openendedness; not prejudging the solution; take chances, take risks; try multiple solutions
- Polysensorial aesthetics: an aesthetic of many senses; this is about the actual making: prototyping; drawing; visualizing
- Emotion/empathy: emotion is a way to engage with the world; passion; designers care about people
Dick also suggested that the above is a good profile of what the art of design is about.
I’m curious about the represenation of designer, though. While I enjoy that I fit with the positive characteristics stated above, I kind of feel like designers are being elevated above others.
I’m not sure that’s the suggestion, but it’s something I have felt at times. If it is the suggestion, I don’t necessarily know that it’s a bad thing. There’s just this slight uneasiness with the potential notion that designers are somehow better than others.
Or maybe I wonder if being immersed in all this design thinking has skewed my perception of the world so that designers are at the center. And I fear this could lead to an egocentric viewpoint where designers are the solution to all problems.
Comments
7 responses to “Why Designers Are Valued”
Dick Buchanan probably suggested that these are the characteristics that make *good* designers valuable, not simply what make designers valuable. Right? I say this because I think this might be the root of your uncertainty in relation to thinking about “designers.”
Not all designers see the big picture, take risks, or care about people. I believe you must be cautious about interpreting the profession into a type of person with associated characteristics. Many talented “designers” are reluctant to even use that term to describe what they do, much less who they are.
I also think you should indeed feel an uneasiness with the suggestion that designers are more valuable than others. While I particularly value the beauty and ease of use design brings to my life, I simply couldn’t get by if the sanitation workers didn’t remove my trash from the curb each week. I’m not trying to make this a parecon issue, I just think you should be careful.
Excellent comments.
I’m not sure Buchanan was making a distinction between good designers and designers. But there may have been something mentioned about people outside of the design profession having these characteristics who could be classified as a designer.
I don’t know. Perhaps the characteristics above have more to do with being a designer as a state of mind, not a profession. I would guess Buchanan would shy away from the profession being a defining factor, given the spectrum of authors we have read from various fields whom he believes all contribute to the examination of design thinking.
As for your word of caution, I agree. I’m not entirely sure where the feeling I described is coming from. Perhaps it’s something strictly within me. I definitely do not think there is a notion that non-designers have less worth as people. After all, one of the characteristics above is empathy.
It’s just that on more than one occasion I’ve had some idea of designer as demigod, and that makes me uncomfortable. Again, maybe it’s something off about my personal psychology. But maybe not.
[…] Why designers are valued […]
[…] Dick Buchanan has also assembled a compelling list: […]
[…] year, while explaining the five reasons designers are valued, and thus the five characteristics of designers, he told the class that if we didn’t possess […]
[…] the irrational, nonlinear nature of the process, the need for experience and design wisdom, and the traits that make people good designers. The need for design has been identified, but not how to shift the linear, number-crunching culture […]
[…] of Design” in class this week, offering a slightly different version of the list of why designers are valued. I’m not sure if this is just a further iteration or different due to the shift in focus from […]