What is meta about design?
Defining the meta in metadesign
When affixed to a subject word, meta gives that subject a consideration of its foundational properties — the structural, the methodological, its form, and its utility — introducing to that subject a higher level of abstraction. Think of the scientific inquiry of physics, to the philosophical ponderings of metaphysics. The former concerns itself with how things are, while the latter focuses on how things came to be how they are. W. V. O. Quine (1937) elaborates on this postulation of meta by defining the ‘meta-theorem’: for when we theorize about the meta-level of a subject, the investigation becomes ‘an X about X’.
With this definition of meta, we see a convergence with the way metadesign has been historically postulated: the space in which we ‘design design’ (Giaccardi, 2005)¹. In this sense, metadesign distinguishes itself from the traditional design focus of how to plan and create the artificial, by elaborating on the design of general structures and processes. Design sets its scope on facilitating the conclusion of a specified design scenario: how should we design in this specific situation? In the case of metadesign, the focus is on developing fluid, rather than prescriptive, structures that identify relational environments that can evolve. This allows systems to be based on mutual and open processes of affecting and being affected. How can design anticipate and design for any and all situations?
It can be seen that the metadesign must be preemptive, malleable, and modifiable, as it assumes the possibility of embedding any structure, system, method, form, or utility of design. Van Onck (1964) suggests that this notion of metadesign is similar to the characteristic of ‘homeostasis’ in biology: the ability for the structure to maintain an organic balance despite disturbances in the environment. Therefore, to be able to design design, metadesign must fully anticipate at design time (the time at which designers create complete artifact for the situation as they envision it) needs, situations, and behaviors that will be exposed at use time (the time when users utilize or interact with the artifact). To elaborate, this is the potentiality of the artifact to be transformed and have its components, contents, and contexts modified via interaction with the user. A designed artifact as such, from the lens of metadesign, is instantiated with what Aristotle called the ‘potentiality for change’, an “actualizing of the potentiality of the subject…the actualization is the composition of the form of the thing that comes to be with the subject of change” (Kostman, 1987). Metadesign must then be composed of two dimensions: the spatial — its ability to embody the general structures and processes of design; and the temporal — its ability to anticipate an artifacts evolution through time.
Giorgio de Chirico in his Estetica Metafisica (1919) writes that, as for the Greeks of Homer and Aeschylus in the construction of their cities, in the architectural form of their houses, squares, parks, avenues, sea-ports, train stations, etc., one should be able to find foundational principles that govern the creation of things. Rather than design being a game of chance, a “superior reality” (or in our terms, metadesign) allows one to go beyond accidental happenings and the opportunity to fall prey to the errors of predecessors. For instance the triangle, as Chirico points out, is ab antiquo and is still used in the theosophical doctrine as a mystic and magic symbol (Figure 1). From the fundamental reality of the triangle, a pulsating life of spatial and temporal significance is given it when dressed in a new way. Likewise, Alessandro Alessi stated that working within metadesign “transcends the creation of an object purely to satisfy a function and necessity. Each object represents a tendency, a proposal and an indication of progress which has a more cultural resonance” (Verganti, 2008). For example, Alessandro Mendini in 1992 designed the 100% Make Up collection for Alessi (Franzato, 2014), wherein he selected the Egyptian canopic jar as a base, designing the entire operation until the technical drawings of the form (Figure 2). He then left the decoration of the vases with other designers, “as a support for a kind of painting exhibition with 100 authors chosen worldwide.” Like the triangle as the base for occult symbolism, the canopic jar symbolized a foundation in which designs of 100 different types could arise.
The examples are not meant to suggest platonic forms as proprietary to design. Rather, the two examples show the temporal and spatial qualities of metadesign as proprietary to design situations. Designed artifacts do not reside solely in the mind of the designer, existing outside as they are perceived on the inside, but are augmented by the interactions they have with the user and the context they are in, being morphed to take on new meanings and significance. In the first case, the triangle, as the base, when manipulated by Pythagoras, identified showed an equidistant and equiangular arrangement of ten points. Most certainly unpredicted by Pythagros, the tetractys is now significant for people inundated in the occult, representing celestial bodies and their spatial relation. The triangle as a starting point had been manipulated spatially and evolved temporally with different users’ perceptions. We see this as well in the collection of vases by Mendini. The Egyptian canopic jar, acting as a starting point, found new representations as they were manipulated by the 100 different designers. The canopic jar had been transformed from its historical form and role in Egyptian society for Mendini’s use in a new design project. The jar evolved over time and developed new spatial relations. In addition, given the reputation of Alessi and their historical significance in design, aficionados collect the vases for their historical value and prestige (Sothebys). For the collectors the vase becomes something to be displayed and shown rather then used for its intended purpose, either Mendini’s or the Egyptians.
Metadesign allows design practitioners and researchers to theoretically question the bounds of design. By having a strong theoretical embedding that gives a situational awareness of its possibilities, design is expanded beyond a confined situation, now anticipating and acknowledging the effects that new information and actions may have on any particular situation. Designers can learn how their design will evolve over time via its interactions with users, how different framings and approaches may affect the outcome at the end of design time. Metadesign takes design decisions beyond the notion that it is made of arbitrary assumptions and hunches for specific situations, and offers a critical inquiry into identifying the root of where design opportunities stem from and the effect they have. By fostering the emergence of all possible potentialities and change as being proprietary to design, the importance of design in practice becomes emphasized. Metadesign shows that design is not limited to certain situations and can go beyond its normal confines, adapting to any unique and novel situation that it is presented with.
¹ Meta-design is the designing of the meta space, while metadesign is the space itself.
Written by Ryan Bruggeman, CfD & CAMD Interdisciplinary Design and Media PhD Candidate
References
Collection of ten “100% make up” vases with lid: Life is beautiful: Milan: 2021. Sotheby’s. (n.d.). Retrieved January 8, 2023, from https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2021/life-is-beautiful-milan/collection-of-ten-100-make-up-vases-with-lid-9
Giaccardi, E. (2005). Metadesign as an emergent design culture. Leonardo, 38(4), 342–349. https://doi.org/10.1162/0024094054762098.
de Chirico, G. (1919). Estetica Metafisica, a conclusive paragraph to Sull’arte metafisica in “Valori Plastici”, a. I, n. 4–5, Rome April-May 1919; republished in Commedia…, cit., pp. 24–25.
Franzato, Carlo. (2014). Metadesign. Letting the future design.
Kostman, J. (1987). Aristotle’s Definition of Change. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 4(1), 3–16. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27743793.
Quine, W. V. (1937). Logic based on inclusion and Abstraction. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 2(4), 145–152. https://doi.org/10.2307/2268279.
Van Onck, A. (1964). Metadesign. Edilizia moderna, 85, 52–57.
Verganti, R. (2008). Design, meanings, and Radical Innovation: A Metamodel and a research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(5), 436–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00313.x.
Join us! #CenterForDesign
️📩 centerfordesign@northeastern.edu
🔗 Linkedin 🔗Twitter 🔗Facebook 🔗Website🔗Newsletter
