Can design change things?

I realised this morning whilst looking throw a set of determined websites in my morning coffee-based StumbleUpon search that I have done little to explore Lateral thinking in these past posts on Facebook and the blog. Mainly I am showing examples of good design, and although that is a good thing, it is also subjective rather than objective. Then, on my third sip of coffee, and as the aroma started to dig into my brain, several things came together. The trigger was this clever little Lateral Thinking puzzle. It was entitled "The Impossible Nail in the Wood trick". If you are curious on the achievement of this, then the link will be added at the base of this post.

What it triggered however, is the standard curiosity path, that I am sure goes through everyone's mind. On perplexing myself over a few more sips of coffee I finally looked at the explanatory video. Not what I expected. But, as I teach these type of thinking it wasn't a great surprise. One of the aspects of design is to originate, not necessarily a product, but a process of looking at the product. Here is a good example. My StumbleUpon search also revealed other new design aspects which take this into account. One of which was a TED talk by Don Norman. The talk covers the aspect of what makes something beautiful in it's design. He argues about simplicity and look and usability, but ultimately it comes down to the designer's ability to see a little differently to make a change.

So, can design change things? The world can be argued to hold a population that don't notice enough about design that it can affect them, or that the subtlety of design is so sublime that it is ignored. What is a fact is that bad design can be instantly noticed and commented on. However, much of this commentary does not affect change. Design and the modern world is a complex one of market issues and acceptance and implementation, etc. However, there are many aspects of life that can be improved, even if from simplistic beautification. This takes little implementation, just modification to the standard industrialised design, that originated on it's first production.

To think different is one thing, to get the majority to accept different is harder. I recently came across a set of designs for wine glass variations. On looking at them and marvelling at the design aspect, it then occurred to me that they looked odd. Maybe this was the reason why I liked them, but also it was a factor against acceptance; why? Society tends to work in creating patterns that become impregnated as a social norm. So, without educating people toward good design, it is a very hard, uphill struggle to gain acceptance for anything that is away from this norm. This however shouldn't stop designers being clever, expressive and forward thinking, because as a famous designer such as Syd Mead found, is that if the industry you work in doesn't accept your work now, many a new avenue can bring it into the spotlight and then get it accepted.

Always, when I try discussing projects to my students, I try to instigate the notion of non-normal approaches to begin with. This is an attempt to get their creative minds pulling out original aspects to the design over normal ones. Does it work? Well over time I see that they do question the process, but also can fall into the trap of cliche. Design is more about right-side expression than obvious challenge. So in that respect, maybe the best approach is to think of how we generate new ideas rather than for what.