Today, Jeff reiterated: “every design is a critique.”

Tuesday, Jeff said (as a critique of the Cross reading while explaining the weakness admitted by Barnard on page 84): “expression theory is useless for anonymous forms of design (i.e. HCI design or service-oriented design) with expressions.”

In my head, I sort of consider a critique to be an expression.

That is: a critique has an implicit content and associated emotions (Roth) that I translate into words (Bell) as best as I can with my language and vocabulary (Gombrich). I am the author of that critique; as a piece of work, it is an external expression of my internal ideas, judgement, and feelings about a given thing I am critiquing. That critique could be a literary critique, a verbal critique of a painting, or A DESIGN. A design as a critique seems to me to be taking a very auteur-like theoretical stance about design.

So… if we take issue with auteur theory and Cross having an expressionist view of design because he ignores the weaknesses (acknowledged by Barnard) of visual culture in terms of individual expression, then we must therefore take issue with saying: “every design is a critique.”

Right?

(I feel like I’m overlooking something that would completely fix this conflict in my head. Someone find a way to say this is wrong because I really like the idea that “every design is a critique.”)

Advertisements