Shape

19 Answer Number Two—Three More Ways to Look at It That Tell a Story
No words, no syntax, no sentences. Language is out of the question for design. That’s
OK with me. I’m not interested in language in that way. I can live without analogy
number 2. But not so fast. The implications are broader. With no basic units—symbols
that can be recognized wherever they appear—there isn’t any way to calculate. Remember,
calculating is using rules to combine symbols. What symbols? Without
words, I can’t calculate. My naive account of grammar and language in analogy number
1 doesn’t bypass analogy number 2. Grammars need words to generate sentences. If
2 doesn’t work, then neither does 1. Unless I can do something about units, it’s either
calculating or thinking, either counting or seeing, and Kierkegaard, Dreyfus, and Miss
H——. There’s nothing I can say about design. If you’re lucky, you can do it, but this
can’t be taught. There’s nothing to learn—no words, no syntax, no sentences. At least
that’s how it looks right now. Surely, there has to be a way to go on. Otherwise, there’s
only a mystery.
Then on the other hand, what can I say about usage? Are there rules that control
technique? Langer acknowledges technique in drawing and the like, and a law governing
it—as long as the law isn’t syntax. Nearly all of the designers I know reject rules.
It’s easier to pick things out with a test than to generate them directly. Perhaps a test
would work to check for good and bad technique in design. Why not Birkhoff’s aesthetic
measure? There are a handful of definitions for order and complexity that don’t
depend on words and syntax. And in fact, I can use the definitions in reverse to actually
make things with high scores. If this works, I have an effective assay of technique—but
it isn’t a real option. The results don’t match what I see. It’s probably a
lousy idea anyway. Everyone I ask agrees. Usage is impossible to gauge in design, even
if it doesn’t depend on words and syntax.
Words and usage don’t work. They’re dead ends in design. But let’s look again before
giving up. What can I do about rules and calculating, and numerical measures?
First, I’m not keen on numerical measures of any kind, even if they distinguish good
and bad technique. I’m not going to use them. In the past, I toyed with measures like
Birkhoff’s that did a lot of counting, only with algorithms, complexity, and information
theory—perfectly modern stuff. They weren’t any better—just one kind of description
won’t do. I’m glad I’ve moved on. I was wrong. So maybe there’s another way to
think about rules and calculating. If I can find a way to calculate without units—with
rules that don’t combine symbols—everything should be OK. I can get designs and not
bother about words and syntax. I need to show that analogy number 1 and analogy
number 2 are independent. And if I can, rules may govern technique—they might
characterize usage. I could get back to words and syntax. What if they’re defined
when I stop calculating as a kind of retrospective summary of what I’ve done—perhaps
in topologies that I can update as I go on? Suppose words and syntax aren’t fixed
but change—smoothly or in jumps—with ongoing practice. They’re harmless as an
afterthought, and they might help in teaching to trace a designer’s intentions or to
compare styles. That’s when vocabulary is useful. It’s only if I have to say what words
and syntax are ahead of time that I have a problem. Designing isn’t combining things
anyway. How do I know what I’m going to use until I start? Where’s the creativity?