Industrial design defined as a profession

Industrial design defined as a profession :confused:

the diff between industrial designers and engineers, marketers or artists is

the fact that they connect each discipline and use them all to produce something with an elegance achieved through the hybrid-effect of combining multiple perceptions.

Therefore this philosophy leads to leaps and bounds of formulation & development.

The arts concerning the synthesis of new things into reality. Are they considered the service industry to the industrial designers?

The formulaitive nature of “the process” as itself, a product, can be informed with marketing data to produce styling effects / lingo.

The communication of such conceptual presentations and the political influence involved with the follow-through of concept and the suddle details which make it what it is/supposed to be.


I think this is a broad outline of a specific description, which captures the essence of industrial design.

I think the word design has not caught up to the context around it, which has recently exploded on the mainstream scene. Even when design is what the mainstream scene is made of.

Design remains a variable and industrial design suggests the true meaning of the word design. Because the encompassation of this field is the one thing which makes it unique. There is also the fundamental nature of the synthetic and “man-made” which is industries chicken and egg scenario.

Floaty thinking with brass tacks appeal is what this is about.

“Dreaming with reality”

problems with industrial design defined, as a profession exist:

  1. Too many me-too repetitive all ready done cliché’s.

  2. The ready-made design/build natures of fabrication as a profession poses a problem which mimics an engineering “cant be done” over-annalistic attitude.

There’s an airiness and flexibilities which support industrial design as a process of $value$ formulation.


Similar to the use of the word - treatment when talking about 4d (time based visual effects) /movies.

Any ability can be treated as a service.

When someone with true industrial design abilities and talent attempts to classify themselves for the eager purposes of selling ones services or education there of, problems occur.

Problems, which have a great deal to do with the miss-appropriation of the abilities. Too much of this and the designer may become confused or chiseled down into a producer of items (drawings/models/renderings) which may or may not contain any relevant value whatsoever, regardless of how fabulous the items may be. The content is not clear enough in the mind of the customer to begin with, or the customer is abusive with their position and rhetoric involving the "show me some ideas until I see what I want”. The playing field of designing things gets over-run with the spectators. The skeptics heckle. When the formulated product appears to be something elegant, it can be seen as simple. Well, less is more. E=mc2 has some math backing it up.

The un-defined nature of “ID” speaks to its universal reality of existence in the world as an art. Such as art can be a variable when everything in the world can be examined as if it were a work of art. Art as a way of life when everything one dose and interacts with is some form of it, including the philosophy surrounding the idea art is everything.

With that being said, it’s safe to say that an industrial designer in-effect is someone who designs industry?

For example, at apple computer, Steve jobs is the industrial designer of the personal computer industry. Intel, Motorola, IBM, Microsoft, are companies, which enabled the personal computer to be realized.

Someone who makes drawings to formulate ideas about how the product may look is a stylist. The developer who makes the cad model of the design derivative with the pre-tenses surrounding tool design and manufacturability is an engineer or design-engineer. The one who produces concepts surrounding the direct in-store sale of the item is a marketer.
Everyone involved in the development effort is some kind of industrial designer in his or her own ways.

If educators have failed in their attempts at developing and solidifying a new profession with “industrial design” as a label.

Who have they failed? Corporate America? Jobless people expecting a real environment for their work? Graduates of outdated id programs?

What are the percentages of designers who strictly visualize verses designers who strictly formulate?

What if designer’s abilities are liquidated and sold off as pieces in a service industry. What dangers exist to the perception of id and its associated value in the market when the designer can’t seem to properly identify their true value? They are expected to sell themselves? When they cant even define what they are useful for?

What happens when they know what they are supposed to be doing? In order to do it, they must take the helm and become a director. The risk involved there is too complex and definitely married to the politics of the owners.

Its as if the designer must have free-reign in order to perform at all.
If the designer doses not have the allowance of creative control, then they stop being the designer and start being the illustrator, sculptor, stylist, and communicator.

It is not, nor it should be , the intent for the ID-er to compete with the illustration communities. so there enlies a way to specify industrial designer among this shared discipline. Get an illustrator to do a rendering or to be a sketch artist.

An illustrator becomes an industrial designer when sketching is an activity utilized as a tool to formulate ideas about function, shape or color concerning some goal to generate a new gizmo or widget of some sort.

An illustrator designs graphics. There is an art to it in it and the result of which is art.

Graphic designer?

Why wouldn’t you hire an illustrator to make a 3d model of some object they illustrated? Or when graphics become energized with the utilitarian nature of interactivity. What about motion video artists? I’m sure they would want to do some functional graphic interface or something as well.

Would it be safe to call artists who are hired to execute artwork as a service, artisans?

Then would we call producers and directors artists?

Then what would that make the artists of today? Craftspeople?

Then we must elevate our ranges of understanding what we call craft.

Craft like spacecraft - not craft like paper-mache’.

I think I use paper-mache’ correctly based on the performance associated with a mardi-gras mask in a mach-2 wind-tunnel.
:neutral_face:

Very well said.

Are you implying that Industrial Designers should act as a Jack-of-all-trades WITH vision?

I know the cliche phrase, I’ve heard it from design professionals and professors alike, “A jack-of-all-trades is a master of none”. But in order to master your designs, should you not be multi-disciplined?

I would like to think that being the Jack of All Trades means you are a Master of at least one.

The original phrase tends to mke it sound like being a Jack of all Trades is easy.

It’s not.

…when you discover the exact meaning about some object that transcends through the superficial reality you also discover that it is the reason for that object’s intended function and use and the world is composed of such objects all interacting and is nothing but visuals (in fixed eyes of an observing panorama) which their individual being (the visual) goes through changes and metamorphosis at the base level (material level) in a variety of froms (concepts) according to what those eyes see as real or intended, and also the condition they’re situated in within that moment. and this all reveals itself when you have sufficient understanding of the object’s nature and the creator of that object. thus, it becomes the spirit level within us…

ibn 'arabi
fosus al-hekam
philosophy of infatuation,
extracted from the words attibuted to the
followers of abraham

…while at uni we were told that what qualifies an id to do the work we do is that we are the least unqualified to do it…