Why digital physical design unity is not skeuomorphism

Unity in design praxis, blending the needs of digital and physical worlds is aspiration of many. It is at times a hot topic of discussion as well. Many design theorists look at skeuomorphism as the obvious choice and the approach to arrive at a unified design for digital and physical worlds. As we know skeuomorphism attempts to translate the physical features explicitly into digital realm. This is subject to criticism from various corners.


My critic is not from the angle of any pristine principles, rather from the perspective of a student of nature. And I don't make any loud claims that design is always the manifestation of truth and honesty. Design is as artificial as any form of art and exploration of truth as any kinds of science. Machine design will be largely driven by the forces of human machine interaction and reciprocal evolution. And I must say it is a misconception that the design is an explicit visual centered paradigm. Yes, it is true that visual features can quickly communicate design elements however there is a larger set of implicit design elements in every object, whether digital or physical. When you design a product or a service or an interactive experience for a commodity in a utilitarian relationship, explicit and consumer specific features are highlighted.

However this is not always true in the case of causal and natural relationships. When relationships evolve through a self organized network or a biological system, they abstract a lot of design aspects. Let us take the example of birds and their wings. Can we say that the evolution of wings in a bird is always driven by the use value alone. Of course not. Ecology also plays a role. Let us take the case of social signs and syntax in language. Can we have single design variable for describing the evolution of all the language symbols. Again it is not possible. Hence the analysis and investigation into the wide spectrum of natural and social relationships require multivariate analysis that goes beyond explicit forms.

Work of Art and Inspirations : A Late Night Argument

Night past 12, I was indulged in a water color, quite unknowing what is next going to happen in my canvas. Colors were shading and fading in my palette and the picture alike. Initially my intention was to use my brushes only in vertical strokes. I succeeded to a greater extent up to the middle. But as the colors began to dominate my senses, I gave my self to the freedom of the stokes. Vertical strokes became rectilinear  curves became horizontal sweeps, horizontals become horizons. And it went on to become a collection of a lot of lines, colors, shapes and shades.

My interest is not on the end product called an art work, but on the process of creating a painting  How are the lines leading the work of art to some specific direction? Is there a sense of beauty that leads and directs lines to take certain shapes or position. Is beauty an end in itself. Why should an art form be so much obsessed with beauty and its nuances. I feel that beauty is just an immediate realization of an artistic process. 

Art and artist transcends the demands of beauty by a necessity and urge to create a logical formation of lines, shades, edges, curves, depths and so on. This in a way leads lines to take more complex forms. When I had a lot of places in paper, lines had a different grammar and syntax. When the colors dominated the canvas, colors were more subtle and nimble. Thus I believe an art and artist is inspired by the totality of the conception than the urge of a pleasing experience of beauty.

+Gokul Alex