When agreement becomes impossible
Article Overview
The article delves into a prophetic warning issued by renowned designer Massimo Vignelli in 1983, shortly after receiving the AIGA Gold Medal. Vignelli cautioned that the design field was on the verge of losing a crucial, fundamental capacity: the ability to objectively distinguish between good and bad design work, supported by reasons that extend beyond mere personal preference. He advocated for a form of 'criticism' that is rigorous evaluation, distinct from cruelty or gatekeeping. This criticism, as Vignelli envisioned it, involves articulating why a design 'works' or 'fails' in a manner that is transparent, testable, and debatable by others in the field.
Vignelli's core argument was not about imposing stricter standards, but rather that without a robust system of criticism, standards themselves cannot exist. Consequently, a field deprived of such critical evaluation cannot accumulate knowledge; it can only continuously produce work without a mechanism for learning, refinement, and progress. This lack of a shared, objective framework for assessment leads to stagnation in collective understanding and expertise within the design community.
The author posits that Vignelli's crucial warning largely went unheeded, not because it was inherently flawed, but because the underlying conditions necessary to comprehend and act upon it were already in a state of dissolution during the early 1980s. The article sets the stage to explore what these societal and professional shifts were, implying that the environment was already becoming unreceptive to the very idea of objective, reasoned design critique. This historical perspective suggests a long-standing challenge in design's self-assessment and evolution.
Impact on Design Practice
The erosion of rigorous design critique, as highlighted by Vignelli's warning, profoundly impacts a designer's daily practice. Without a shared, objective framework for evaluation, designers often find themselves navigating a landscape where feedback is subjective, based on personal taste rather than established principles or user outcomes. This can lead to 'design by committee' scenarios, where decisions are made based on the loudest voice or highest-ranking opinion, rather than data-driven insights or sound design rationale. It makes it difficult for designers to justify their choices, defend their work, or even understand how to improve beyond simply pleasing stakeholders.
For individual designers, this lack of objective critique can stunt professional growth. Imagine a chef who only receives feedback like 'I liked it' or 'I didn't like it,' without specific insights into flavor balance, technique, or presentation. They would struggle to refine their craft. Similarly, designers need concrete, reasoned feedback to understand the strengths and weaknesses of their solutions, learn from mistakes, and build a cumulative body of knowledge. Without this, design becomes a series of isolated projects, each starting from scratch, rather than a continuous evolution of expertise.
Ultimately, the absence of robust criticism means that the design community struggles to collectively define and uphold quality. It prevents the accumulation of shared knowledge and best practices, making it harder to elevate the entire profession. Designers might feel their work lacks impact or purpose if its 'goodness' cannot be articulated or measured beyond fleeting preferences.
Rigorous, objective design critique is essential for establishing standards and accumulating knowledge, preventing design from becoming a field adrift in subjective preferences.