Central Image: Good Design exhibition (Nov 27, 1951–Jan 27, 1952, MoMa) | Source: moma.org

The question of whether the term design can be accompanied by the adjective “good” has been discussed a lot and from many different standpoints. How could it not be controversial when the detailed design of any functional object can only be considered positive? However, for many, for an object to be categorized as a product of Good Design, it should meet certain conditions both in terms of its design and its use. The question that arises from this highly strict and dogmatic meaning of the term is whether all the objects that are considered products of good design actually adhere to the respect and legitimacy that the objects of the so-called “good” design must follow.

**Design or Good Design?**

The term design signifies the plan or the thought process for the creation of an individual or a series of objects, interactive systems, vehicles, buildings, etc. So, by definition, design aims at the practical solution of the most essential (or non-essential) problems that plague people in their daily lives, with the aim of improving the user's life, which is any way at the centre of design thinking. Thus, we could say that design is the ultimate product of human evolution since it evolved along with the development in humans of a more complex way of thinking. After all, who could deny the fact that the invention of the wheel is the first and perhaps the most important achievement of design, indicating its exact meaning for the purpose of its existence? Couldn’t this product be considered an example of good design since it solved a problem and helped the easier and smoother flow of everyday life, while also contributing to further cultural development? Could it be that, after all, all design products are by definition well made, each having its own purpose and goal?

The evolution of the wheel | Source: muicenter.com

The answer to the question above is complex since, for many, a good design result should possess certain aesthetic properties as they were formulated at the beginning of the 20th century. However, this viewpoint is somewhat problematic as it is pointed out by many scholars, among them Beatriz Colomina and Mark Wigley in “are we Humans?”, since Good Design -mainly during the 60s and 70s- promised not only the construction of a functional object but the creation of “better” people as well. Apparently, at this point, the issue is the excessive characterisation of a plethora of objects as products of Good Design and there is no reference to the attempts of many designers for an essential change in design with the aim of a better future. Shouldn’t the overuse of the term make us think twice? Wouldn’t it be better if we let each kind of product speak for itself over time, so as to reveal its true virtues without aimlessly advertising them through various labels?

Historically, opinions concerning good design were implemented - albeit at a primitive level - in the late 19th century by some members of the Arts and Crafts movement, as frugality and simple details started to become a trend in object-making. The same artistic path was followed by the Austrian Adolf Loos, in whose designs we find the principles of the absence of decorative elements and the restriction of design to the basic and utilitarian elements of the building, where the smooth, colourless surfaces have a catalytic effect on the way the building is perceived and used, a reasoning that was also expressed by Louis Sullivan with the famous "form follows function". However, despite the positive outcome and development of Modernism, the shift towards simplicity contributed to the neutralization of any personal or cultural decorativeness of objects and buildings, eliminating any characteristic that declared the existence of a certain culture. From this moment, we would say that the shift towards a mass, somewhat culturally colourless, production is a fact.

Looshaus, Vienna (Adolf Loos, 1911) | Source: divisare-res.cloudinary.com

At the same time, Hermann Muthesius in "New Ornament and New Art" (1901) is also in favour of limiting decoration and a turn towards a more “pure” form of the design result. With these declarations, the simplest and purest design begins to acquire an ethical dimension, while the distance from anything unnecessary begins to take the form of an "educational" use of the final result. A few years later, Le Corbusier in his 1923 book, "Vers une architecture" ("Toward an Architecture"), also associates smooth surfaces - "smooth as sheet-iron" as he refers to them - with the feeling of purity, giving the -somewhat misguided- example of the Parthenon’s simple and unadorned design. Nonetheless, “good” design would in vain try to establish its meaning after the mid-20th century.

The different meanings of Good Design

If the term Good Design signifies the effort of designers to create "better products, for better people", then we should reflect on how many objects, buildings, etc. this term has been used for. Could the social housing of the USSR be considered part of Good Design, since - according to Nikita Khrushchev, their main instigator- their main educational goal was to create the perfect and moral, according to the regime’s standards, man? The answer is not certain, because even though they were structurally close to the standards of simple design and the functionality of the floor plan, apparently serving the needs of the occupant, they did not seem to fare well over time due to their often inexpensive construction, while the complete absence of the personal element - due to the efforts to "educate" citizens towards full equality - leads to an absolutely systemic design approach.

Khrushchyovkas today’s North Siberia (Social housing) | Source: upload.wikimedia.org

Dieter Rams has proposed his own extensive version of the definition of Good Design, highlighting ten principles, according to which an object can be classified as a product of good design. In short, Rams’ ten principles are: good design is innovative, makes a product useful, is aesthetic, makes a product understandable, is unobtrusive, is honest, is long-lasting, is thorough down to the last detail, is environmentally friendly, is as little design as possible. He himself abides by those principles and indeed his work -mainly the products he designed for Braun- follows the context of his own -once again- restricted definition of Good Design, while also bringing to mind the Bauhaus school, where industrial design was at the centre of the artistic vision.

Dieter Rams | Source: styleformiles.net

But in this case, also, the definition is explained through designing, by implementing the ten principles. Furthermore, once again, the constructed objects that did not “check the boxes” of functionality or simplicity are excluded from the model of the good design result. Could constant reminders, of how important and necessary "good" design is and how important it is to strive for it, lead to something better?

More thinking, less labeling

Living in an era of fluid concepts and meanings, it would be outdated to think that there is "good" and "bad" design. By imposing limits to design and placing products under the label of “Good Design”, mainly for commercial reasons -for who wouldn’t want to buy a product that promises the ethical integrity of the consumer?- the value of the term is lost, leading to misconceptions or even the disorientation of the field, which, as we have seen, centres around humans and the betterment of their lives. In any case, all objects whether intended for use or for decoration have a specific function, which can be functionality itself, decorativeness or even the projection of artistic freedom. Who could deny that, for example, a work of art does not have a function, which is revealed only through its inclusion in its cultural context?

Perhaps, we should begin to think and listen to the ever-growing needs of the modern age, adapting the design and production of products that fit into a wide range of cultural contexts, including the social, ecological and cultural parameters that characterise the complexity of today's everyday relationships between people and objects. Only this design, which respects all aspects of life, will be able to be considered ethical and by extension Good Design.

Sources/ Further reading

Justin McGuirk (2009). Braun and beauty: Dieter Rams comes to London's Design Museum. From: theguardian.com.

Good Design. From: interaction-design.org.

Τhe Design Museum. What is "Good" Design? A quick look at Dieter Rams' Ten Principles. From: designmuseum.org.

What is design?. From: strate.education.

The book of Beatriz Colomina & Mark Wigley in: fsv.cuni.cz.

Sammartino, Annemarie. (2017). The New Socialist Man in the Plattenbau: The East German Housing Program and the Development of the Socialist Way of Life. Journal of Urban History. 44. 009614421771023. 10.1177/0096144217710231.

Khrushchev’s presentation of the social housing programme: Khrushchev Speaks: Selected Speeches, Articles, and Press Conferences, 1949-1961.