I am always fascinated when I learn something new, or rather, learn something MORE about something I already KNEW. The historical roots of the word "design" break down into an complicated , twisted paradox that I know I have always had a hard time explaining to people who ask "What IS Design?"
Beyond the perception that I mean "fashion" or 'interior" or "graphic" when I say that I am a Design student, I try to give them a trite "Design is everything, everywhere, all the time." So vague but so true. My suspicions were confirmed as well as frazzled nerves slightly smoothed when reading "The Etymology of Design: Pre-Socratic Perspective" by Kostas Terdizis.
The breakdown in this journal, written by Terdizis and published in Design Issues, Autumn 2007, pages 69-78, we find the Latin word for design is broken down into "de" and "signare". Although "de" usually implies a negation- and "signare" means to mark out, in the world of design, we see the "de" as a derivation or inference. Terzidis states that the "word "design" is about the derivation of something that suggests the presence or existence of a fact, condition or quality".
A good start. But the Greek root word tries to unravel the paradoxical knot further. The Greek word "schedon" (nearly, about, approximately)is derived from the Greek root "eschein" (which futher breaks down as the past tense of "eho" (which means to "have, hold, or possess"). Can we say it is like "almost having something". The almost impossible utopian dream of actually having something you never can. Does that make sense? NO???
I know. Good. Now we are both lost.
No, but really, a few quotes of Terdizis simplified the concept of design into tiny, bite size pieces that I could swallow with " the strive to capture the elusive" ,(translation from the Greek into English) "something we once had but have no longer" and "a loss of possesion and a search into an oblivious state of memory".
There is so much more to be said in this article about the definitions of "innovative", "originality" and "trendiness" that reshapes and clearly defines the grey area that once was a blur between the words. I think for myself, as a design student, it confirms what I already suspected: all design looks back to what was and worked and what was then, new, and strives to reshape, remodel and rekindle it into something new, inspiring and re-invented for today's masses. All art, all design, is is almost always somehow, from somewhere apporpriated. Not to be confused with "hacked" or "stolen" which is a lame and pathetic, but "inspired from" and "aspiring to be". In trying to invent the latest "new" "cool" and "trendy" thing, we are looking back in time and propelling it forward in hopes that it will then be ressurected. Over and over and over again.
Confirming my suspicions even further, one look at Fall Fashion Week Spring 2011, we can clearly see a sentimental nod to the 70's. Dr. Housefield, Professor at UCDavis, posted on his "Design Consciousness/Conscious Design" blog a wonderful clip from the New York Times, "New York Fashion Week: a Season of Change" that feautured the 70's inspired fashion design work of Diane Von Furstenberg, Marc Jacobs, and Rodarte.
http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/09/16/style/1248069041947/new-york-fashion-week-season-of-change.html
There is "nothing new under the sun", but only what grows from being under it.
No comments:
Post a Comment