Skip to content


October 30, 2010

I am picking up something I’d noted before–in one of the comments to the Andrew Blauvelt piece, somone wrote something like “Design is just that: DE-SIGN!” Presumably they were just sounding it out. But thinking about prefixes, I like this idea of design as de- signing things. That doesn’t really necessarily make sense right?

But if “a sign is an entity which signifies another entity” (wikip, obvs.) and we are not into the known, but rather the unknown per Hara, than we want to de-sign things. So, you know, we are walking down the street and not noticing anything, just rushing to work. Because in some sense that experience of everyday signals “nothing to notice” “it’s all the same stuff you already know.” So if you sort of de-sign that experience, interrupt it, make the pedestrian notice it…. well, the designer must subtract some known element. That’s definitely clear for any sort of intervention, it seems.

In the sense that any anti-object is an intervention (pay attention to reading!!!! this book is not just a sign that some designer slapped together some text and pictures nice! PAY attention!), you have to subtract some piece of given knowledge/sign/symbol of everydayness to do that.

It might be a stretch but I think it relates…

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: