Explaining Design Theory »
Does theory inform design? It is the age old question that arises in so many design-related debates about how we as designers learn, contextualise and research. I have always argued that it is imperative to have theoretical knowledge in order to produce meaningful design. In studying a Masters, I am starting to understand that theory is not necessarily what I have always considered it to be. I also realise now that meaningful design does not necessarily arise from a monster folder of research. In order to link theory to the discourse of design process, I need to define theory first.
The dictionary states that theory is an organised system of accepted knowledge. I could not ask for a better definition, as a system of knowledge allows for there to be many different interrogations of process. Knowledge manifests in many different forms, and sometimes it can even be subconsciously ingrained into our learning from either education or practice. With that in mind, I have begun to define a few systems of knowledge used in design processes.
Firstly, I can categorise all systems into two camps: subjective and non-subjective. There are overlaps, whereby something may appear to be unquestionable but through further interrogation new questions may arise — I will identify those overlaps later. That said I have identified theory that is technical, historical and abstract. The latter is subjective, whereas the rest are non-subjective. It is a basic but feasible system.
Technical theory within design implies protocol which is already established and often a part of the crucial learning needed to be a designer. For example, knowledge of grid systems, typography, colour, form, accessibility, contrast, geometry and layout. The more technical knowledge a designer may have, the more informed their outcomes will be. Arguably, the designs will also be far more practical and far more appropriate.
Historical theory is self-explanatory. Design has a history, from Gutenberg to the creation of Helvetica to visual subversion. Those who are passionate about history, or arguably anyone who is passionate about anything, will say that history gives us the parameters with which to define today and predict tomorrow. The history of design is just as culturally relevant as what is seen today — after all, today’s design was prompted by things explored and discovered in the past.
Lastly (arguably), and most difficult to define, is abstract theory. Though holistic theories may come under abstract theories, I would not lump the two together. Thinking holistically is a practice that relies on itself for verification, whereas thinking abstractly involves a disembodied concept which is both universal and intangible. For example, philosophy comes under abstract theory. It can inform design in a way that deepens the intended communication, and can distinguish the design beyond what is trendy so that it is unique.
Even then, no one system of knowledge is self-sufficient and there are many overlaps in knowledge. Technical theory may be a protocol for design, but it is also the result of a lengthy historic and abstract process. For example, the rules of Swiss typography may define what is generally good design but it was created through intense study which questioned traditional processes and sought to reinvent them. The study of design that was undertaken to create these rules was so thorough and so ground-breaking that it eventually became a standard within design itself.
So by scrutinising all design decisions which are based on existing technical theories, the things which informed it will begin to reveal themselves as being subjective. So suddenly, technical theory is no longer a protocol. It implies that though an immense knowledge of technical theory is certain to create good design, it is through other systems of knowledge that design becomes something that makes a substantial contribution. But that subject calls for another ridiculously lengthy blog post.
I hope to validate my views by studying this subject further, but I also find your opinions important. What do you think constitutes as design theory? Do designers find it difficult to articulate the theory that informs their work? Is there a fundamental theory which all designers are required to know in order to be classed as designers? What other systems of knowledge can be attributed to design (perhaps scientific theory)? And lastly, is theory important at all or do some systems of knowledge inform design better than others?