My mother had funny ways of trying to connect with my professional activities. In the most accusatory tone, she would claim that all an architect really wanted was to be a poet. I have written poetry:
When I think back to the beginning of time
Artists have struggled to make things refined.
Philosophers ancient and modern agree
To do so has requirements three.
and then the poem goes on to describe the Vitruvian triad: firmitatis, utilitatis, venustatis (strength, utility and grace); the attributes of all design. Nevertheless, I hardly consider myself a poet. On the other hand, no client of mine has even asked for or have I ever offered a design I consider purely pragmatic. Absolute functionalism may be the target for those interested in efficient design free from ornament or any unnecessary aspect. In other words, design with the absolute economy of the cheapest materials producing buildings with the lowest cost per square foot. This results in an impermanent object not likely to last long, such as big box buildings with a projected life of five years. No one claims such buildings are architecture.
The designer as poet is reaching for two things: the precise choice of elements – words or objects – and the openness created in between which allows for the other’s imagination. This vague terrain may be found at all scales of design from the humble clay pot to a city. It is in these spaces, real or abstract, that people find their own voice, their own sentiment and then their own opportunity of expression. Poetic design frames such possibilities. The designer as pragmatist is reaching for something even more difficult to achieve: a design that works so well that its form in material become synonymous with the object: the design is the meaning. From ergonomically-designed objects to the IPod, pragmatic design imbeds the poetic, and vice versa. The reactive imagination and the appreciative use blend to the point that they are indistinguishable.
Teaching design with this goal in mind presents the only challenge that is really worth considering because, if you are successful to any degree, you have supported a learning experience that transcends the particular momentary design problem and is a process applicable to any design endeavor. This method does not take the form of a recipe, nor is it haphazard experimentation. I think it combines activities of understanding a physical material’s inherent capabilities, of appreciating the human body and how it wants to work in the world, and of the asking a good question. What if . . . poses the situation of a design investigation. Judicial subtraction eliminates extraneous and competing motives. Checking bigger and smaller scales intensifies the design by making its proper fit more specific.
The relational paradigm of poetics | pragmatics poses neither the conventional Western duality of either/or, nor the Janus-like two-faced dilemma where one is the privation of the other. Rather, they are linked simply because the best poem serves a purpose just as superior functioning design is poetic. Some call this the beautiful, but who today considers beauty the goal of design?