Is the Quality Old Design Methods Better Than Todays - Essay Example

Is The Quality Old design Methods Better than Today’s? Is The Quality Old design Methods Better than Today’s? The process of designing is usually termed as a heterogeneous process and as such, it involves several aspects hic includes; approaches, methodologies as well as strategies. These are usually influenced by the experiences of the designer in the course of the process. In addition, these aspects are also influenced by the background in the socio-culture as well as the prevailing economic conditions. For one to come up with an architectural design, it is necessary that one follows a specific design method. This is because; the problems experienced today are by far too complex such that they can neither be solved by intuition nor can they be solved using traditional wisdom (Brand, 2005). Since design involves different tasks, it is necessary that different methods be incorporated. In earlier days before technology was incorporated in architectural design field, the industry practitioners used some elementary methods to facilitate the design process. As technology was adopted, these methods slowly faded away and as time went by, every practitioner became conversant with the new methods and from there henceforth, the new technological methods started dominating over the old methods (Brand, 2005). However, from the recent developments attributable to the new technological methods in design, a question tends to arise. Are they better in quality as compared to the preceding old methods? Therefore, this paper will aim at trying to answer the question concerning the quality of the old methods in design as compared to the current design methods, which have a technological aspect. Despite the fact the technology is ideal in every aspect of life if adopted, the older design methods, which did not entail technology, were meaningful and as such, they can be said to be of good quality than the contemporary methods (Brand, 2005). One of the earliest design methods is apprenticeship. As such, it can be referred to as a system full of extreme antiquity. For instance, the Hammurabi’s code had to acquire craftsmen who were skilled to impart knowledge to the young in regards to apprenticeship. During this time, technology had not been established yet and as such, technical knowledge proved to be of great value. This method can be said of great quality as compared to the new technological design methods because, the knowledge obtained in such methods of design were practical (Hillis, 2008). Most of the contemporary design methods are largely theoretical and employ the practical notion very limitedly. For instance, in great cathedrals, the drawings therein were full size and as such, large sets of dividers used in older days design were widely used in setting out the masonry. Moreover, forms as well as shapes were psychologically developed in the minds of the craftsmen in a gradual way. Later, just before technology took reign, older designers were also making use small scale drawing. All these practical aspects of older design methods are used less in the contemporary design and this proves that the older methods are of more quality than the new (Hillis, 2008). In regard to the master as well as the apprentice system, the decisions concerning the design methods were based on the traditional grounds. As such, the design process was therefore done in special ways. The most precise reason for this is because; the processes had always been done within such ways. This is indeed absent in the new technological design methods. The older design methods such as apprenticeship could be used for anything, from building to ships. Today, there is a range of design methods and each method is used for a particular product (Hillis, 2008). Even today, admiration for the traditional products attributable to the old methods used in design can still be depicted from the people and as such, the admiration continues growing. This therefore is supposed to mean that the quality attributable to traditional designs are of superior quality as compared to the new designs made using technological methods (Christopher, et al, 2007). The modern design industry practitioners make use of design techniques which are based on the traditional design methods. Despite the fact that the modern technological design methods are at the moment being taught by design schools across the world, there are criticism that arise. As such, many people argue that the technological design methods being taught today o not constitute a design method, which can be said to be pleasant or comfortable and capable of raising useful buildings. For instance, Leon Krier, an urbanist as well as an architect recently indicated it publicly that modern technological design methods represents egoistic caprices and as such, it is usually that the quality of results is often said to be uniform unpleasant (Léon, 2008). This should not be the case. These methods ought to represent solid foundations, which are strongly related to design as with the traditional design methods. Today, instead of the modern design theorists resulting to a design basis that is useful, they seemingly tends to cling in a stubborn way on ideas, which can be said to be outdated as well as narrow which come with the technology. Moreover, these modern days’ designers exert thoughts as well as great energy in efforts towards creation of a corpus of work which many people attribute it as irrelevant when human needs are put into considerations and this again proves that the older design methods are of great quality as compared to the contemporary design methods (Christopher, et al, 2007). Another issue with the new technological design methods can be seen from the plethora of research studies on problems associated with the resultant products. Indeed, there is a common trend in findings of most of these studies. According to them, when design started incorporating the technology in the methods used in design, serious problems associated to mankind developed. This followed that the appearance, evaluation, justifications as well as the form of the resultant products failed to take the form, which can be said to be essential in relation to the building use attributed to the human beings (Léon, 2008). The new technological design methods are such that, through their use, there is a big likelihood that the designer will ignore the effect that a product has on the sensibilities of a human being. In addition to this, the modern designers also fail to use abstract criteria essential in justifying a specific or a particular style of building (Christopher, et al, 2007). These criteria were there in the old design methods and when technology takes over the design industry, the criteria transformed for the worst such that they deviated from being useful to the human beings. Moreover, they became irrelevant to the environment already built. Precisely the new technological design methods turned out to be deconstructive as they destroyed the critical relationship of the human beings with the built environment (Christopher, et al, 2007). Indeed, the modern technological design methods are of inferior quality as compared to the older methods as spelled out by critics. They argue that today, the new technological design methods encompass a situation where total confusion reign. As such, the only way to surpass these confusions is to utmost understand the new design methods with the help of the scientific analysis. To emphasize on the quality of the old design methods, it is said that, the underlying goal was encompassed in these old methods and as such, the consequences that arose did not last for long (Léon, 2008). Older times architecture as well as design was ultimately based on the sensibilities associated with art On the other hand, today’s design entail many errors, which can be said to be egregious, and as such, they are part and parcel of the modern architects’ credo and as such, this intuitive fashion can no longer be worked with. The new design methods, in regard to the institutive method, can be regarded as certainly valid when traditional buildings’ culture is taken into account. However, these methods do not deliver whenever influences, which are deconstructive in nature acts upon a design. This is a clear indication that the new technological design methods lacks in terms of quality (Léon, 2008). Another proof that the old design methods are of superior quality as compared to the new technological design methods lies with the Darwinian design. Darwin was an idealist in the older days who was involved much on issues concerned with design. It is commonly said that a good design ought to be adaptive in nature. In addition to this, it is said that the optimal design method in regard to the achievement of an adaptive design indeed follows Darwinian design process. In Darwinian process, selection made through comparing with a prototype is sometimes said to be bad but in the real sense, it is necessary if that prototype can adopt the uses in regard to the required solution associated with design (Léon, 2008). As such, it can only be so if at all the underlying prototype is as a result of evolution adaptation. It is said that the products of the prototype coping may not be original but in a way, it tends to guarantee a measure o usefulness, which is strong in nature. This prototype method is a traditional method in design; a set of prototype copied have evolved over a long time and have come to be adopted to particular uses. The resultant products from these traditional design methods are guaranteed in respect to their adequacy. Design methods which have no older methods attributes can be disastrous if relied on entirely. To prove this, disasters in regard to designs reigned. These disasters were largely attributed to the arbitrary geometrical forms, which at that time being presented as urban as well as urban prototypes (Steven, 2001). As such, these prototypes were technologically driven and as a matter of fact, they were exclusively based on the generalized reasoning. This kind of reasoning was such that it was only helpful in providing a tenuous connection with regard to philosophical as well as social concepts. These two concepts have no relationship with the activities that the human beings involve themselves in. Moreover, they are in no way related to the human sensibilities or their functions (Steven, 2001). Today’s designs, which have been produced with the new technological design methods are non adaptive and this follows that these products can never come to achieve any perceived degree in regard to the user comfort, putting psychological or physical aspects of life into consideration (Hillis, 2002). Technology today is used to ease a certain process. Practitioners tend to use technology as an aid in executing a design process. In such a case, a design practitioner tends to limit his knowledge since he depends much on the technological aspect. In regard to the practitioners of the yester years, they used design methods whereby they were required to exclusively use their utmost skills to deliver in a design process (Steven, 2001). This can be said to be an ideal notion because, such a practitioner would tend to keen while executing a design process and as such, when the process goes all wrong, he can be able to trace where errors transpired. With regard to the modern methods, since they are dependent on the technology, a practitioner is prone to making errors (Richard, 2006). The stability of the products of the old design methods says it all. While products made using the technology encompassed design method of today come and go, most of the old design products still stand. As a matter of fact, the many people today see things designed in the past a better as compared to those designed today (Hillis, 2002). This of course is due to the quality associated with them. Old methods used in design were detailed and as such, they entailed taxing processes. Irrespective of this, the designers had to follow each and every process because there were no available shortcuts. Moreover, if any detail was omitted, the usability of the end product would be lacking. Today, the modern design methods are short and easy to follow (Hillis, 2002). Indeed, they are modifications of the preceding methods and as such, to shorten the time taken in conducting these design processes, the technology has resulted in some method details being eliminated. Consequently, the end product may be full of errors and as such, it would not function properly. For instance, it has become a trend that newly designed products in which technological methods have been used are being released only to be recalled after many people complain of inefficiency in their performances (Mark, 2002). Despite the many proofs that the old methods are of superior quality than the new technological design methods, there are those individuals who are still convinced that the new methods are of good quality than the old. According to them, the old methods were not capable of establishing differentiated design models as it is observed today. They increasingly assert that with the rise of technology, it is now easy to innovatively come up with better designs and of which contains improved and superior features. According to them, the old methods were elementary and as such, no big development would be achieved (Mark, 2002). In addition to this, they attribute the modern world, which is of a big contrast to the old world to the technological methods used in design. After all, if the old design were of great quality as it is said, why then did the world change to be the way it is. Indeed, if they were of superior quality than today’s design methods, then the older society would be integrated (Hanson & Samir, 2001). On the other hand, since the new technological design methods are said to be lacking, they should be indeed disintegrating the world, that is, their effects could not be constructive. Rather they would be deconstructing (Salingaros & Mikiten, 2002). From this analysis, despite the few who see the new technological design methods as of superior quality, much proof has been brought forth to show that the old design methods are sufficient in quality as compared to the succeeding technological methods. The major proof depicted is from the plethora of research studies which collectively states that the new technological design methods are based on the older design methods (Hanson & Samir, 2001). Another explicit proof is that the products made using the old design methods are appealing in regard to their durability and as such, they are the most sought after. Moreover, the products, such as buildings that are being designed today have a short life as compared to the older ones. As a matter of fact, products are being made and leave the older ones while still standing strong (Richard, 2006). Therefore, it is clear that the older methods used in design are of superior quality and were effective in producing better architectural products as compared to the new technological design methods. References Brand, S., 2005. How Buildings Learn. New York: Penguin Books.  Christopher, A. et al., 2007. A Pattern Language. New York: Oxford University Press. Hillis, W.D., 2002. Co-Evolving Parasites Improve Simulated Evolution as an Optimization Procedure. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Hillis, W.D., 2008. The Pattern on the Stone. New York: Basic Books. Hanson, B. & Samir Y., 2001. Reuniting Urban Form and Urban Process. Journal of Urban Design, 6(1), pp.185-209. Mark, B,. 2002. Nexus: Small Worlds and the Groundbreaking Science of Networks. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Léon, K., 2008. Architecture: Choice or Fate. Windsor: Andreas Papadakis. Richard, G., 2006. Patterns of Software. New York: Oxford University Press. Salingaros, N.A. & Mikiten, T.M., 2002. Darwinian Processes and Memes in Architecture: A Memetic Theory of Modernism. Journal of Architectural Theory, 23(1), pp. 117-139. Steven, J., 2001. Emergence. New York: Scribner. Read More