As an anthropologist, the subjectivity of design and aesthetics is forever fascinating. How do we decide what is designed well and what is beautiful? I wrote my thesis on the political and social negotiations inherent in definitions of art in Morocco. And although these definitions were greatly affected by postcolonial dynamics in the country, the study proved to me the variability of beauty. For me, the only universality is subjectivity: what we prefer is formed by what others in our lives prefer and the pleasant experiences and memories we associate with those preferences.
Chris Anderson, curator of TED, took a pretty different stance in his commencement speech for the 2011 class of Harvard’s Graduate School of Design. He described a shift in our understanding of beauty based on a growing body of research that favors “nature” over “nurture” and finds universals across cultures – including aesthetics. Before the shift, when we thought we were all shaped by those around us, one had to be educated in the tradition of and by the experts of beauty to know what was truly beautiful. The rest of the population did not “know.” As a result, architects designed to that specific tradition’s understanding, which alienated a large portion of society. Now, since we are discovering that a definition of beauty is more inherent and biological, we all know and believe in the same beauty. Therefore, architects are able to design in a way that satisfies the masses.
Anderson’s thesis has both logical and ethical flaws. Logically, if we are all the same, then we were before the shift in understanding as well – those definitions of beauty should have satisfied everyone. The fact that the architects and artists he referenced designed in a way that only satisfied a few proves that we are also the products of what we are taught. Furthermore, ethically, assuming universality is dangerous and in fact perpetuates the creative pretentiousness he condemns.
I agree with Anderson, in his belief that design has the ability to galvanize society, but this is due to a very different societal shift. What has shifted in the fields of art and design is the sanctity of the creative process. Fields are shifting away from the idea of “Art” and “Architecture” with capital “A’s” determined by a select few to “art” and “architecture” that is accessible to all. It is a democratization and invitation for others to inform the definition of beauty. Design is not more successful because we can design to universals, but rather because we allow others to have a voice in what they experience. It is not dependent on universality, because it in fact accepts differences, and does not assume that we will all agree.
A reference to the debate between cultural relativity and universality was misplaced because a belief in universality applied to design would in fact perpetuate the pompous acts that he condemns in his speech. Universality can be used to inspire unity and encourage empathy, but designers need to go further to surpass generalizations and deeply study the context for which they are creating. 3M’s Visual Attention Service although a fascinating technology, similarly makes me fear that designers will ignore the nuances of how individuals approach and perceive. We have similar behaviors based on biological conditions, but we also have different perceptions and emotions pinned to those behaviors. We must study the entire system to understand our audiences and peers.
Will we all be interested in the same areas and for the same reasons?
As our world becomes increasingly interconnected and we design for more and more foreign contexts (geographically, economically and politically), we must not forget humility. We need our designers to ask questions about how things are done in these unfamiliar settings and why they are done that way. If we invite perspectives different from ours and use the design process to empower, allowing others to be proud of their beliefs, we will create the most successful designs yet.
-Sarah Malin