In this post-post-postmodern age of the Anthropocene, where the boundaries of binaries, authorship, and their semantics hold no significance in our pursuit of survival, the ongoing debates over distinctions like art versus design and theory versus practice appear outdated. By now, these arguments should have been relegated to the annals of history.
When individuals mistake the technical processes of tools, techniques, and methods of structural engineering as the sole design process for architectural form finding, or when architects confuse their architectural design process with home construction, it raises fundamental concerns about our designers' understanding.
The primary drivers in transforming a brick structure into a house and a house into a home are not merely the procedural outcomes dictated by tools, techniques, and methods, as some process enthusiasts might lead us to believe. Instead, they are deeply rooted in human aspirations and socio-cultural aesthetics, shaped within the context of individual egos influenced by their ecological surroundings.
It is high time we abandon the notion of a binary divide between art and design processes. Both designers and artists often make this distinction, with some artists considering design a lesser endeavor. However, at every stage of art creation, there is an inherent design component, and likewise, at every stage of design, there exists an artistic component. Consider the form of a brick artistically designed and engineered to yield a repetitive pattern in architectural form, arrived at through a structural engineering process. This evidence shows that neither the processes of art, design, nor engineering can claim isolated existence. Moreover, the most crucial element in the transition from a house to a home—the family and its aspirations, which render the entire art and design outcome relevant—is a socio-cultural construct based on faith and belief.
Put differently, in the processes of art and design, media, methods, tools, and techniques hold contextual relevance within human faith. The priority of their selection can change based on an individual's social construct of ego, which is a subset of their ecological context. It may manifest as either a reflective or adventurous engagement.
Those who confuse design as a reflective practice, focused on planning priorities among identifiable parameters, or art as an adventurous exploration within structural parameters, fail to see that both are essentially dealing with the same stream, albeit from different perspectives. A stream is more than just a flow, and a flow is more than just a stream. Remember, a stream always exists within a flow, and vice versa.
In the twenty-first century, when a single smartphone integrates a camera, movie camera, scanner, GPS, film theatre, torch, library, music system, typewriter, phone, pager, and more into a five-inch square device, the sanctity of old-school art and design processes rooted in form, function, and aesthetics becomes increasingly obsolete. These processes are at odds with our technologically advanced society.
Over the last two centuries of industrialization, technology, and globalization, our art and design practices have significantly impacted the world, leading to irreversible damage, destruction, and displacement. This era has been identified academically as the Anthropocene, where human activities aimed at production and material transformation to satisfy needs and greed have irrevocably altered the natural environment.
As we have witnessed the diminishing relevance of traditional art and design processes—focused on form, function, and aesthetics—in our technology-driven society, we find ourselves without sufficient time for reflective planning to rectify the damage we've caused.
In today's world, where everyone can become an image creator, sculptor (through 3D printing), video maker (with smartphones), writer, publisher, storyteller (through blogs and microblogs), product designer (using 3D printing), textile designer (utilizing auto design generators), and communication expert/brand builder (exploring social networks), the principles and processes of media and material production have become obsolete or have evolved at a much faster pace than anticipated.
Looking ahead, the need for art and design practices will shift from production to reduction. It won't be a reflective or adventurous engagement but, more aptly, a matter of the positions we take. The principles and processes will no longer revolve around tools, techniques, and construction methods, nor solely aesthetics and planning, but will focus on assessing the damage, destruction, and displacement affecting our environment and society. Many other aspects will have become passe.
In any case, the principles and processes of art and design have always centered around responding to human needs and aspirations. The way it is practiced today, whether constructing a font, sculpting a human form, creating visual compositions, or planning town layouts, they share the same underlying principles. They revolve around the observer, the observed, and the act of observation, creating a continuum that applies to art, design, architecture, and more. If anyone believes their particular continuum is exclusive, they may be hindered by a narrow understanding of the art and design process, or, worse, blinded by their own flawed judgments.
No comments:
Post a Comment