The ANTIDESIGN

A conversation is a simple concept to grasp, but as applied to design it harder to define it's limitations. Design, like language, is just a medium through which we can communicate. Arguably, design is a language in itself. When we look at designs, there is already an assumption that there is supposed to be an audience or in some cases a client. This would be the design communicating it's piece, to the audience, to the client, but a conversation goes more than one way. What is the audience giving back to the design?


One of my favorite performance artists, Yoko Ono, portrays in a more obvious way the conversation between the audience and the artist in almost all of her groundbreaking pieces. In 'Cut Piece', she sat in her best clothes and invited the audience to come and cut pieces of clothing from her. In another famous gallery piece where she met her husband, John Lennon, she invited the audience to hammer a nail into the wall.

Artwork like these are inspirational, in that they cross the imaginary boundary between the artist and the world around them. It brings to mind the timeless question of whether the artist is still the artist when they aren't doing the actual creation. Ono's invitations have become classics, and have consistently been revisited over the years.

Another amazing piece that Yoko Ono shared was called 'Play it by Trust' and featured a game of chess played with all white pieces on an all white chessboard. At this point, her models are set up in galleries, but this game was intended to be played. Not only a conversation between artist and the world, these pieces make the audience converse with each other.

Art in any form is often confused with self expression. There is often an assumption that when you're looking at an artist's work, you are peering into their soul. An artist's work is an outer expression of one's feelings, life, opinions, thoughts, emotion, past, or passions; isn't it?

I argue that creativity does not always come from within. Many designers find inspiration to create in a way that isn't self-centered. This just means that the want or need to create doesn't come from a want or need to self-express, it comes from outside of themselves; no meaning need be attached.

One creative artist, Sylvain Meyer, uses the term 'Land Art' to refer to his work with nature. Meyer's ephemeral designs have earned him quite a bit of recognition, and are reminiscent of the epic natural works of Andy Goldsworthy. The photo to the left shows Meyer in the process of creating one of his noteworthy pieces entitled "Enroulement Marron" or "Brown Swirl" in English. This piece was made out of brown chesnuts, which as Meyer says, are usually only picked up by children. In his works, Meyer is consistently remaining conscious of his effect on the environment around him, and is careful to use "eco-friendly" methods.

Meyer's artwork brings to mind the simple play of a child. We all experienced something in the way of making our own mark in nature, whether it be a circle in the sand, a pile of stones, or twisting flowers together into a bracelet. Nature is something we can each relate to being inspired by because it's all around us.





When looking at 'creativity from without', as observers we often find ourselves trying to place meaning on pieces of work that simply isn't meant to be found. The point of work like this isn't to make a statement, boost an opinion, express an emotion, or define the artist. This kind of art is about working with material, enjoying the process, and more often than not, it's about creating something that is simply beautiful. Artwork like Meyer's and Goldworthy's is notable because it represents this type of creation in a natural and stunning way. What makes these artists unique isn't necessarily their talent or skill with their instruments, it is simply their inspiration from without.

As a child, choosing what we want to do for a living seems like a most crucial and time-sensitive decision. I remember just knowing that everyone in my third grade class already knew exactly what they wanted to be when they grew up, and were already working towards their goals. I was behind. I never felt like I knew what I wanted to do for a living. What I knew was that I was fascinated by things that made me feel intensely, and had some kind of unusual draw towards dramatic situations. Since I was 7, I have gone through many passions, but they always change, and I always get bored. Choosing to major in design was not an easy decision for me to arrive at, in fact, it's one that I chose in the last few days of registration. This isn't the first time that having a deadline to make has eased the decision making process a bit. Although I was rushed, I know that design was the right choice for me personally, not only because of future goals, but also by looking back at what I enjoyed and found interesting when I was young.

When I think about design as a career choice, I still find myself thinking that it's best suited for someone who has a passion for creating new things. That isn't my experience. Personally, I do not consider myself a creator, or even one who is passionate about the idea that we can create new things. What I'm really passionate about is being inspired. Seeing new things makes me excited, and it always has. It is enjoyable and effortless to soak up style, technique, mood, and composition of new artwork that I see, but also by structures and objects I find as I move through the world. Being in a new place in the way that novels, video games, movies, and travel can offer is absolutely a source of inspiration to me. That truly encompasses what being a designer is about for me personally. Designers are just pros at being inspired.

Since the term "design" is one of the many English words that has no true and agreed upon meaning, the topic of "design in society" is an intensely broad one. In our world, we can witness design in several ways that are immediately recognizable; things like architecture, fashion, websites, jewelry, and other objects we use in our lives and consider to be of artistic or creative value. There is also the less recognizable design, the objects that aren't considered of any large scale artistic value, but are designed to make life easier.

For my sake, I am limiting design to what I'd consider to be successes in society. This doesn't necessarily mean only objects and designs that have been recognized by society to be of merit, but also designs that I personally recognize as having potential to add value to our world.


If design was a cupcake, art would be the frosting. Art in itself is something difficult to define as well, but there is no disputing that art and design overlap in a major way. To me, design also seems to envelope a large mass of things that are not considered art. For some people, the terms 'design' and 'art' are entirely interchangeable, but for the sake of getting a closer hold on the meaning of design, I am limiting art to aesthetics, where i find design to be rooted much more in reality, in that it can be found in things that cannot be seen.

Sometimes the definitions aren't important. Most of us can tell when something is or is NOT design related, but I might argue that everything has the potential to be used in design. To me, design (loosely) is the process of taking from x to idealize y. In terms of design in society, this relates to almost everything that we do, regardless of the field. Creation is part of humanity, and to create we first have to imagine it into existence. That is where I see design, right in between seeing something new and having created something new.