anti design
Out of context: Reply #29
- Started
- Last post
- 55 Responses
- ********0
To have design there must be some sort of human intervention, otherwise there is no design. Therefore we have an anti-design. Whether the design is ugly or unusable, "hopefully" there was some sort of conscience thought into putting the design together. Although a major blur for discussion comes when we try to separate art from design. Whatever does not overlap must also be an anti-design. Here we are not trying to understand good design where bad design is an anti-design because a bad/ ugly design still a design.
What separates science from religion is the emotional factors that are involved. The same can be said with design and art, if you believe design is a science and not a mystical force of nature in which requires us to have faith, belief and emotionally bind us to it without any proof of existence. So religion is an anti-science where art is an anti-design.
- Anti-design / faux-ugliness is just a set of stylistic connotations. I can't see how anti-design == no-design / bad-design.********
- bad-design.********
- Anti-design / faux-ugliness is just a set of stylistic connotations. I can't see how anti-design == no-design / bad-design.