We talk about creativity and innovation in terms of thinking outside the box.

Thinking outside the box still needs to remain within the boundaries of the problem we are solving. In other words, thinking outside the box does not disrespect the box.

Look at the box from a different angle, but keep looking at it. Be as creative as you can, but conform to the project requirements.

No one likes to be critiqued, but everyone is a critic.

As a design practitioner and teacher of design, I am involved continually in the analysis and evaluation of design. I critique my students’ work in the classroom and I critique my own work in the studio. My clients critique my work. I critique the work of other designers. Judges critique our work when we submit it to design contests. Our clients’ customers critique our clients based on our designs.

Critique is a normal and necessary part of the design process, yet I find that people don’t like to formally critique a work and they don’t like to have their work critiqued. How can we improve upon anything unless we critique? How can we innovate without evaluation and appraisal? How do we establish value in something unless we assess it?

Critique is simply an assessment, appraisal or evaluation of something. When we critique something we are analyzing it. We do this all the time in the normal course of a day: We critique each other’s driving, style, attitude, favorite movie, political position, religion, job performance, home run average and habits. We each have an opinion about what is good, better, best, bad and ugly.

I think that students and practicing designers don’t enjoy being critiqued because they understand criticism to be destructive or mean-spirited. Or they take it personally, as if it’s them, not the work, being evaluated. Or they don’t want to be wrong. Most critique tends toward negativity.

Criticism is often disguised as critique. They are not they same thing. Criticism involves disapproval of a work based on perceived or obvious faults and shortcomings. There’s a thin line between the two ideas that’s easily crossed. Critique should be objective, honest and useful. Criticism is most often subjective and destructive. Its intent is to tear something down. On the other hand, critique tests for weaknesses for the purpose of improvement and excellence. Criticism accuses; critique edifies.

In reality, critique should be neutral. It should not be feared as much as it is. It should be performed in order to asses what is right with a work and where it can be strengthened.

For critique to be neutral it should be based on established objective guidelines. For a design work, this is fairly simple. We look at the work and its outcome on the basis of the intended goals for the work, since all design has a purpose to it. Are the aesthetic principles supporting the function of the design? Are color, balance, rhythm, harmony, spatial relationships and value all working together to enable the design to accomplish its intended outcome?

If design is not whimsical but purposeful, critique of design should also be purposeful and not based on personal opinion. The kind of response that is, “I think it’s a good design because it reminds me of…” is not an objective criteria. Values, purpose, specifications, etc. are a much more just basis for evaluation. If critique is based on objective criteria it cannot be dismissed with the excuse that it’s just one person’s opinion and therefore invalid.

When all is said and done, honest feedback is better than warm fuzzy feedback. Critique should be honest, just, and balanced between strengths and weaknesses. It should serve to build up the designer (or student) and empower them forward into creative maturity and greater success.

Those who track and analyze cultural trends generally agree that our culture has become design-driven. It’s no longer based on business or technology but on design. We consumers generally assess the value of a product or idea based on post-modern criteria: its design, its visual appeal, how we experience it, how we feel about it. Design has overtaken business and technology as the impetus for consumption and economic growth. For example, chewing gum products are packaged to look good when sitting next to a Blackberry or iPhone. This, of course will increase their appeal and resulting sales.

Because we are design-driven, there is ample opportunity for innovation and new ideas to flourish when presented to the public in desirable “packaging”. Thus we judge a book by its cover and the contents inside the box by the graphics on the box. Designers develop these visual assets, packaging and experiences to, in essence, present ideas. Any idea presented in an elegant, exciting “package” generally achieves greater acceptance than one that isn’t. A good idea offered in a cheesy “box” will be passed over in favor of a bad idea presented in a thoughtful, aesthetically-sound container. Design persuades us to accept something based on its packaging or graphic environment.

A designer can take any idea – whether authentic or not – create an appealing graphic environment for it, provide a positive user experience, and it doesn’t matter if the idea is authentic or not. It matters only if it makes the user authentically feel good. As long as the design appeals, the idea it presents will gain acceptance, even if unprovable or dangerous.

Thus, surrounded by aesthetically-sound design, any idea can be accepted as valid. There is danger in this. Not every idea is valid or even worth consideration. Not every idea is “true”.

In our post-modern, design-driven culture, form has taken priority over content and style rules over substance. Post-moderns gauge authenticity based on experience rather than proof. It doesn’t matter if something is verifiable or not, as long as we feel good about it, as long as it makes us popular, provides a sense of community and belonging, or is compatible with our desire for absolute freedom. If it accomplishes any of those things, it must be authentic. If it is presented as being authentic, it will be considered as such even when proven otherwise.

Does it matter if we create excellent design to package a lie? Does it matter if we might be helping to spread inaccuracy and fabrication? Does anyone care, as long as something looks good?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1rZqw5bXb4]
I first saw this clip by EepyBird in a post over on The Digital Sanctuary followed it to its source. I enjoyed it enough to want to share it here. 

And I wanted to add the thought that everything we consider ordinary, such as a pad of sticky notes, had a unique origin. Whether created on purpose or by accident, it was brand new once, and therefore uncommon.

Over time such things become part of culture and are considered mundane. That is, until someone takes hold of them, looks at them differently, makes new associations or puts them in a different context. That’s when the ordinary object becomes extraordinary once again.

There’s more to see from from EepyBird. Have fun!

I was over at FastCompany’s blog reading Chris Dannen’s review of Apple Leopard. He referenced the multi-touch technology developed by Jeff Han at NYU, and included this clip.

Just watching this is very entertaining and all the gestures and movements going on reminded me of traffic control officers and orchestra conductors. I found this clip really fascinating to watch, and thought, how cool! Not having to sit all the time in front of my computer screen? Priceless!

What do you think? Can you see yourself designing at your desktop in this manner?