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.

Constructivism and the world of art: Beyond the noise

Investigations on the major milestones of Russian formalism took me to the foundations of constructivism. I found the following books informative on the historic role of constructivism in shaping a social aesthetics of art and literature in the modern times. However my pursuit to find the critical role of constructivism in shaping up a materialist consciousness in the emerging literary groups of Soviet Union needs further references.

In the book: Constructionism in Practice: Designing, Thinking, and Learning in A Digital World, I came across an interesting article by Mayakovsky here: How are Verses Made?. Quite thoughtful indeed. This book mentions that environment design and artifact design need to be worked upon separately.

The same book says about another conjecture that the markets are inherently reflexive when the author is speaking about the ‘open textured’ nature of designs. The rationale is that whenever the interpretations of human action can change the course of subsequent action and interpretation, it is said to be reflexive. While searching online, I could see that constructivism is almost used synonymous with the category ‘social constructionism’ and many authors perceive Marxism itself as a philosophy centered on social constructionism.

Going through one such book, Building Knowledge Cultures, we can see that there is a recent attempt to create mystery around the concept of constructivism. This book presents an argument that constructionism and constructivism are entirely different schools of thought. I will need to examine the authenticity of this laughable proposition.

On going further, the book Unfolding Social Constructionism speaks about a critical approach to cognitive psychology and its representational paradigms. It says that memories, perceptions, motives etc are not psychological entities, rather constructed in conversation.

The book, The Russian Experiment in Art, 1863-1922 says that constructivism achieved its most complete realization in the early films of Sergei Eisenstein. Another book, Realist Constructivism says that a constructivist will take a clearer position on the ontological role between individual and society than on the questions surrounding the power.

Constructivism in Film: The Man with the Movie Camera : a Cinematic Analysis has finally landed me on the history of the movement in Russia at least. According to this book, constructivism was famously defined in the ‘Realist Manifesto’ issued by the brothers Naum Gabo and Antonin Pevsner. They wrote that ‘art is the realization of our spatial perception of the world’. The rhythms of the working men and the machines play an important role in the constructivist theater. Constructivist photo-montage is based on the principle of self reference and it precedes the emergence of the self referential cinema.

Like other constructivists, Alexander Rodchenko emphasized the self referential aspect of the photograph achieved through the dualistic relationship between the images content and the means by which the image is constructed. He suggested that the photographer should find the most expressive view point that would alert the viewer of the potential use of the medium. Implicit in this approach is the formalist’s method of ‘defamilarization’. This is an interesting development that constructivism becomes a tool to break the false consciousness.

When humans dream of Algebra, nature crafts our Geometry!

A Collection of thoughts on Mathematical Languages:

Natural Reflections on Algebra & Geometry

This post is inspired by an intriguing thought that disturbs me often when I try to relate the beauty of algebraic notions and their syntactical complexities with the physical dimensions and measures of geometric nature. Geometrical shapes of vivid complexity is all over us. Algebraic knowledge becomes richer and deeper day by day. 

At the outset, algebra appears to me as the attempts of human mind to find an order within the physical and its own humane cognitive nature. Hence at times algebra becomes associative and at times abstract. Geometry is mostly occupied with unique physical operators for measuring nature and natural objects. As human mind and its boundless imagination works in both the streams of knowledge, they always explore anew territories and often produce complex functions and abstractions. Humankind crafts nature in their own reflection. 

As we know, our innate tendency to imitate nature has been one of the fundamental driving force in all our scientific, artistic and engineering initiatives. This tendency gets transformed into further advanced forms of knowledge as we apply our reflections of nature into our labor process. This tendency can be seen in the mathematical languages as well. Our mathematical observations about geometry has helped our investigations to find patterns in the field of numbers and algebraic symbols. Is there a difference in the nature of measurement in Algebra and Geometry? Though the approach remains the same the challenges differ widely.

Some metric level contradictions in the nature of Algebra and Geometry

I was always perplexed about the physical differences between various elementary mathematical operators like addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. When I add entities of different properties, the sum never accumulates in nature. It occupies a physical space less than or equal to the nature of individual entities. 

Taking an example, if we add one mango and an orange in a physical box they take space as equal to their physical dimensions. In the representational mathematical space also they occupy distinct locations. When we take two mangoes here they occupy same space in the physical box whereas they add on to the same quantity in the representational space. 

The question is whether the mathematical symbolic space is as accurate as the physical geometrical space. For convenience we may denote this representational space as algebraic. The algebraic space is often limited by the limits of our abstractions and the capacity to associate them whereas the geometric space is challenged by the scope of observation and the limits on the minutest quantum that we can reach. 

Numbers are the base constructs of the symbolic space. They become complex when the physical world in the scope becomes wider and deeper. We think of complex numbers and complex plane when we reach a limit to measuring the diagonal of a triangle made of single unit edges. Then the new symbol enters our mathematical vocabulary. This is just an example. Similarly when we think of trigonometric measurements, we find new sinusoidal and cosine patterns emerging in symbolic space. It is a new synthesis of physical and symbolic space.

Next question is can symbolic space travel ahead of the physical space. In other words, can we dream a physical entity before experiencing its real physical nature. I must say that at times yes. It is not magic or miracle. It is because of the intellectual capacities of human cognition and the power of knowledge to expand the horizons of our recognition. Each strides in the cognitive skills of human mind and our social experiences enrich our mathematical languages, whether they reflect our knowledge about symbolic space or physical space.