Understanding the Designer Mindset
It might seem to the generalized eye that the process of initiating any kind of building design ought to be a logical one that readily adheres to some kind of tangible “common sense.” Some theorists claim that a “secret” to good design occurs when the designer simply proceeds from “generals … to particulars,” addressing all the broadest most sweeping questions first and then, once tentatively determined, follow up with a more careful scrutiny of those of lesser significance later, with the eventual result of a thorough, appropriately considered, completed and excellent design.
On the surface, this notion carries seemingly indisputable truths; considering the “small stuff” first can seem utterly backwards and a recipe for a chaotic jumble of misplaced priorities. It certainly is a useful theory, but only in a general, superficial way. Nature, in fact, does not work this way and while its practices may be confusing, even exasperating with seemingly random data emerging at unpredictable occasions, learning to cooperate, coexist with, to seek deeper realities of an issue is the essential challenge of the Functionalist designer.
Time … at least in the context of everyday thinking, is a linear process. With the fact that the designer’s process itself needs to acknowledge this reality, with decision-making that seems to occur in kind, it can be easily mistaken that the design process itself ought to be linear as well. Certain issues can thus seem to reasonably be logically ahead or behind others in their priority. It is not, however, that simple, and the designer ought to beware.
Design is a mostly tentative process; every idea, especially during its earlier stages, cannot realistically be considered final. It needs to be treated as temporary until the complex process of unfolding developmental stages demonstrate its continued progressive viability, albeit with possible modifications along the way.
Contradiction will accompany the process—or at least seem to do so. It will be regularly required of the designer to make decisions that “cannot” actually be made. Tentative “proposals” are incessantly made, explored, and tested, and either retained, modified, or discarded.
Within the context of uncertainty, the designer must be decisive and not “waffle” at the many challenges that present themselves. They must know the difference between an idea that needs further analysis (before its tentative incorporation) and one that can be quickly included (or discarded) within the developing scheme. Above all, the process must flow, must not get bogged-down in self-conscious “overwhelm.” Resolutions to problems take many forms; some arrive immediately, others after careful research, and still others from an enlightened postponement that allows them to emerge in their own time.
The designer ought not define seemingly “good” ideas as “rare and precious commodities” that, once achieved, need to be protected and preserved, as if they are difficult to come by. Ideas, in fact, are normally a “dime a dozen” and await the designer’s open mind in order to emerge in full abundance.
Conversely, the designer ought to concurrently develop the ability to recognize an especially good idea when it chooses to emerge, and to embrace it to its appropriate extent. They must, as well, have similar skill at discarding an emerging bad idea, without giving it inordinate attention during its brief life.
Without such skill, the designer will be at the mercy of a quagmire of indecision that might never progress, never come to resolution. Fear, overwhelm, and a personal sense of impotence and insecurity can foster a pervasive helplessness that can be, in many such cases, the common “death knell” to successful design. While often seeming to be a condition that is external to the designer, it primarily resides within their mind, and can be entirely unrelated to their essential wisdom or intelligence, as well as even the design process itself.
It is invariably true that any given designer, once achieving extended experience over significant time, is usually more knowledgeable, more skilled in their craft, if not in comparison to their peers, certainly so within their personal history. Once found, experience can often yield a robust contribution to the cause of quality design.
