Cultural Appreciation — Deep Design

“I would like to be remembered as

One who had pledged myself to the

Service of God and had fulfilled that

Pledge as perfectly as I can — not as

a piece of furniture.”

Sister Mildred Barker, who died at

Sabbathday Lake in 1990, at the age of 92

The United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Appearing (The Shakers)

The ongoing discourses surrounding cultural ‘appropriation’ have been augmented in some cases to include an interesting discussion on cultural ‘appreciation’ and how it differs from appropriation—a mostly negative action. There is a great deal to learn concerning cultural appropriation but also a great deal to be discovered about cultural appreciation.

Therefore I want to talk more about cultural appreciation and how I became aware of it in my design practice and teaching. A sudden insight into what appreciation meant changed my approach to designing and teaching. This ah-ha led to what I now call Deep Designing including Deep Design critiquing. It also led me to an insight concerning both ‘meaning’ and ‘value’ in designing and the designed that is not confined to the context of cultural appreciation alone.

When I was an architecture student, I learned that ‘style’ influenced the work of even the most individualistic and creative design professionals. The styles emerging from important historical eras would evolve and influence the emergent styles of subsequent historical eras. Some style eras could last hundreds of years while others seemed to pass in an instance — mere decades.

The Shaker style of design — master planning, architecture, furniture, and furnishings — remains extremely appealing to me. I couldn’t afford to buy any of the furniture as a student of course but the attraction has remained with me over the years.

I was startled by the clarity of the insight I had when I came across Sister Barker’s comment some years ago. I realized in a meaningful way that ‘style’ was not substance, character, or pneuma although I had heard the point made many times before. Style points, or implies, deeper levels of meaning and value in designed artifacts but the appearances of a style are just a hint of what lies beneath the surface.

I formulated a schema that helped me discover what lay beneath any appearance or experience of an artifact. The schema assists me in analyzing and evaluating designs as well as in ‘scoring’ design processes. When asked to judge or evaluate a design I return to this schema to assist me rather than depending on reactions to mere appearances. The appearances and experiences of designed artifacts are what designs are most often evaluated by and design portfolios are filled with. Awards and recognition are based on the visible or experienced manifestations of the artifact. The norm is that style, in one way or another carries the day when determining a design’s worth.

The Deep Design schema helps me to disclose what is invisible to me in the immediate sense but that is the essential nature of an artifact — concrete or abstract. It is helpful in critiquing design as well as in designing in the first place. I have used this schema to better understand many of my favorite artifacts I have collected from all over the world over the years. It has also helped me to navigate complex design projects, both material and immaterial

The schema is simple enough basically but expands quickly to embrace greater complexity and nuance.