Design is not a science

I am nearly one month into my MA Design course and I would struggle to describe the whole range of emotions that have washed over me. Firstly, I am energised by working in such a dynamic field and nearly daily find how this path of study has brought together ideas and inspiration from my past that, at the time, I didn't even realise was design-related. The title of this blog, for instance, was something that struck me even though I wasn't quite sure how to carry it out. Spending my days now researching people who drastically downsize their lives to live in very small spaces, it has become much clearer.

However, I struggle on a daily basis with the subjectivity of it all. For all its drawbacks as a career for me, in finance, at least for the most part, you knew when you had the right answer. The financial statements balanced, the investment was returned, or at the very least, your business pitch had that certain little something you were sure would catch the eye of your audience.

In design, I have been thrust into a world of subjectivity and have not quite yet learned the metrics of evaluation. What makes a good design good? It turns out it is not as simple as sitting down with a sketchbook and pencil and a bright idea. Good design is researched, studied, mulled, marinated, and shaped, and even then may not take the familiar form of a product ready for market. To paraphrase Bruce Sterling, good design is increasingly about the interactions between objects and people in a complex and dynamic world of low attention spans and high opportunity costs. In short, design is not a science, it is an art.