Reading Reflection

In the Reading Reflection this week Heskett introduced his take on what design was defined as. He made the argument that it is complicated by an initial problem presented by the word itself. I agree with him in the sense that design has so many levels of meanings. I learned a number of ranges of design and that further confusion of the word design is caused by the wide spectrum of design practice and terminology. "Design is to design a design to produce a design." This definition of design is very confusing to me but Heskett breaks it down in each part saying how every use of the word is grammatically correct. This gave me a better outlook on the meaning. Another way at looking at design that I didn't think to before is how it can be defined as the human capacity to shape and make our environment to serve our needs and give meaning to our lives. I agree with the statement Heskett makes about how human capacity to design has remained constant with alterations. Forms were adapted by intent or accident. I agree with how humans create stereotypes of forms and their purpose. They've became closely adapted to the needs of societies. Abstraction in design has led to inventions that are cultural. Humans came up with a number of concepts that lead to design which started from the a long time ago being us to where we are today. I learned that the term "functionalism" articulated design concepts in the early twentieth century. Some of these concepts are utility and significance in design. I realized from the reading that it is possible to find design in many kinds defined solely from these terms. I agree with the argument that with the outcomes of design processes, in the end result it, should not be the central concern of the study of design. It should be considered the intentions of the user's needs and perceptions.