Janusz Krupiński

Four Ideas of Design Philosophy in Pawłowski[1]

In this paper I am going to expand on four intertwined ideas of Andrzej Pawłowski’s philosophy of design:

1.The idea of self-generating form;

2. The idea of creative recipient;

3. Crito’s aporia

4. The step-backwards method.

In this order I will discuss them below.

At the outset it should be said that the last two are implicit in Pawłowski’s writings.

1.The idea of self-generating form

“The shape which came out in this process [ of self-correction] determines its own possibilities of emergence. It is an open form.”[2]

The negation of this idea are all actions which treat their objects as a raw material or as a mere constituent part of the intended results, i. e. as something which is of no value unless transformed in accordance with an intention, not to say with a blueprint, design, by the truly-only-one creator: an artist, designer or politician.

The idea of elf-generating form goes against all arbitrary approaches which neglect the nature of the objects in question, which slights and disdains the dispositions and capabilities, constraints and affordances which are inherent in it.

Thus one who adopts this idea has to dismiss the concept of acting subjects, I mean designers, artists or politicians, which follows the theological model of God (which would like to act as the Almighty).

Indeed the myth of an omnipotent, god-like creator has been captivating designers so as a result it is very typical that designers claim their competence of creating of something that is totally new, at the utmost: social functions, cultural identities or new life trends.[3]

But in the light of the idea discussed here “creation” has to be understood as a drawing out, as an unfolding. It means that the origin of process of creation is already present before the creating itself and it is neither present in the creator nor reducible to his capabilities.[4]

Furthermore, action, project, and design cannot but be understood in categories of cultivation, care tending... In fact, the idea discussed here was also inspired by agriculture.[5] The philosopher put it in this way: the creative attitude consists in “listening to the object, in letting it [...] be our guide”[6].

In the phrase: “Self-generating form” the word “self” refers to the fact that the object of action hast its self, its nature, Any value which will emerge as the result of action can only spring out from this self. The same refers to all objects to be affected by the action.

Are, for this reason, acts of creation to be understood as like bootstrap processes? Regarding objects as situations antecedent to the act of creation, the above said does not mean that they already contain any answer to the question: what ought be created. This ought-to does not drive from their former or present possibilities. The creation neither discovers not reveals but rather draws, elicits, provokes possibilities of the objects in question.

But what does it mean, in reference to the problem of creative action that the originality of the given object has to be taken into account? Is this merely paying respects? Does the designer have to credit the considered object with possibilities, capacities or dispositions and simultaneously to treat them all as its, the object’s, designs? Will the realization of them amount to the status of the created? Does a design reside in the possibilities inherent in the nature of an objects, in its originality? This is a question that deserves close attention. Nevertheless I wouldn’t like to embark here upon the philosophy of being modalities (i.e. of possibility, necessity etc.). Let me emphasize only that possibilities are, I think, no irrespective of their being projected. An object’s possibilities  depend for their being upon the projection which places  the object within a new universe, a new context, within a new system of reference. While being projected on such a new background the object gains qualities, it presents itself possessing a new form, new gestalt finally perceived s its possibility. Clearly, possibilities are impossible without a process of projection.

Moreover, the resulting gestalt is not simply the effect of the new background’s influences upon the object concerned. From the viewpoint of the idea of self-generating form the designer’s task consists in letting the object itself radiate its “self” within the new background structure and, ensuingly, to reflect adaptationaly the bounce back effect of the object’s own, radiative influences.

Let me add that the core of every design, and of every project, constitutes a mental act of projection within which possibilities are drawn out and delineated.

The idea of self-generating form rejects the following two-step approach: firstly the search for pure absolute platonic form and secondly the search for some real being to turn it into a means of realization of this form.

In contrast, the designers who follows the idea of self-generation starts with a given being, trusts in its originality, while looking for determinants of its desired but unknown form, expects them to emerge within the process of forming itself.

In other words: there are excluded all a priori preconceptions, general tenets, of how to design apart from that one: approach each problem paying the highest attention to its particularity, originality, and idiosyncrasy. While you are in the process of addressing a problem let the latter to correct your approach. You will always have something to learn from the domain to be affected by your project and action.

The idea of self-generation does not claim that the created should become with no participation of a designer. Nevertheless, the ideal would be that the object of creation simultaneously becomes the subject of creation; when person involved and also to be affected by a design is its author. Professional designers would be expected to let his or her “self” to speak.

2. The idea of creative recipient. Consummation

“... art becomes a kind of particular impulse for the self‑dependent activity of the creative recipient (in this case the process of reception is identical to the creation”[7].

The phrase “creative recipient” sounds like a contradiction in terms. But it is the case because the word “recipient” has developed a prejudice which denies the idea considered here. The image of the act of receiving usually presupposed by us, while thinking in term of recipient, suggests that a complete unity is conveyed and given to the recipient, a unity which appears to be already constituted and delineated in the project including the role which the recipient is expected to play. The word “recipient” itself suggests a passivity on the receiving side. This understanding of reception has been close to the consumptive attitude which prevails in our time. One who adopted it used to expect a product to be ready for “swallowing” in a way which will impose on him no requirement, neither physical nor mental effort: anything given to us should be “self-understandable” and “self-evident”.

On the opposite side there is the consummative attitude. By calling it in this way and by referring to consummation, I would like to bring mind to the image of creation, a unity, as a work, is emerging only due to reciprocal efforts of two partner-like forces.

At this point arises the question: what is the designer-user relation like if the idea of consummation underlies it (“user”: one more misnomer). Let me confine the problem the problem to the situation when the designer’s project in the objectified form of a product (and its manuals etc.) is received by the user: clearly the product constitutes only the one objective side of the process within which the product is becoming an implement (or aesthetic object) and a value is being fulfilled. Let us consider the second, subjective side of this process: the user cannot be expected to react in a way strictly predetermined by intended product stimuli.

It is not enough to think of product-user relationship in terms of mapping. The idea of creative recipient expects of this user an efficacy thanks to which within the mentioned process may occur a totally novel value, overcoming all the intentions of the designer. It would be not only the fulfillment, completion of an intended value but a surpassing of that value.

To put in more general way: The work is never done and ready‑made at the end of artist’s or designer’s action, moreover, the creative process never ends at the moment when some artistic or industrial product is ready for reception.

So-called recipients shouldn’t be expected to behave in relation to the given product in a prescribed way – they cannot be seen merely as subjective factor appropriate for realization, by means of this product, of the designer’s or artist’s project.

The project, objectified in the form of a product, should leave space for invention of future recipients and in turn should be over taken, reformulated and even transformed by them.

3. Crito’s aporia

“People start to think they have a right to receive dreams for free, without any effort, ready to be consumed. Further more there is a common conviction that the serves mashed-food is of better quality than a self made one could ever be. It is so for the simple reason, that it has been produced by creators with adequate qualifications and competence.”[8]

“Perhaps in the age of specialization the obligation of a given society is to produce and therefore also to design such ideal models for those who in their natural model-creation functions are lame or retarded.”[9]

The above sentences contradict each other. This opposition can be characterized in general terms as follows: to what value should the project be subordinated, pertaining to and believed in by the project-maker (i.e. by the designer) or by those who are expected to use his project and to be affected by it (i.e. by users). The aporia is a decisional situation, when a person facing a decision stays in the middle of a tension between two (or more) opposite value universes and if s/he shows any partiality s/he falsifies this situation and falls into self-deception. And since there is no certainty to find and know the ultimately proper only choice, for same reason, no one side can have the non‑contestable authority.[10] There is hope that just in the middle of this aporetic, dialectic tension a novel value judgment will emerge, a step closer to rightness.[11]

We are challenged by this infinite search for true values. Our duty is to attempt to find  and set an equilibrium, a consensus. Crito’s aporia, it is proposed, shall be the name of the situation described above.

Plato was the first, I think, in his dialogue Crito to pose this aporetic question: how far is the decider (in his dialogue: politician) expected to follow the will and opinion of society, community, or individual to be affected by his decision.[12]

This aporetical situation consists in the tension between the designer’s value system and those of future users.

The designer deceives himself while thinking that his value system is:

-          the same, identical with that of future users;

-          professionally justified, better, the only proper one;

-          taken into brackets, put away and neutralized;

-          equally good as that of the users because “anything goes”.

Crito’s aporia  underlies a number of Pawlowski’s thoughts whereas it was never thematized by him. Initiations show his struggle in this aporetical tension to avoid partiality and one‑sidedness. Nevertheless the opposition between his statements (like those two used as the motto of this section) made me to want to study the problem I called here “Crito’s aporia”. Let me refer to a few passages of Pawlowski’s writings.

“The design process, in most cases, is a post-decision process [...] it means that both, the architect and the artist begin their activities at the moment when the fundamental decisions are already made and very often made by persons without proper qualifications to design anything, that is, to formulate, to conceive and elaborate the intention.”[13]

The basic assumption of the above statement is the understanding of project-making that does not confine the project to the conception an choice of means appropriate to attain the goal already set (formulated “intention”) but embraces also and first of all, the setting and choice of ends.[14]

This passage is on the verge of the claim that design is to make a project of human being rather than to serve men as they are and they think of themselves and of their “destination”.

Pawłowski expresses the pretension of designers, of qualified professionals, to set future users “intentions”. But he wrote also:

“The designer does not design alone, he designs always with a society, sets only dispositions, a certain program for the society to be realized by the latter itself”.[15]

To the society is left self-dependence only so far as to realize and execute what is  programmed by the designer, Similarly in the following passage: explicitly Pawłowski defends the will of the society whereas implicitly the latter turns out to be a class of realizers, executors:

“Designers only create certain elements initiating complicated social processes the authors of which are all their participants, both organizers and realizers”.[16]

Again, those who would overtake the initiation loose their autonomy, subjectness. The aporetic tension is so strong that in his statement Pawłowski goes against his own demand, already expressed in “The concept of energy fields”, for the design to overwhelm the discriminatory division between “conceiving and realizing”.

The essence of Crito’s aporia constitutes that fact, that future users, the whole society may by wrong and undergo value-deception preferences while designer who discovered a true value would have to go against the prevailing tendency and try to show it to other. In this point originates the despotic and authoritarian temptation to dictate what ought to be.[17]

In the paper “Designing Ideal Models” Pawłowski addresses the distinction between “is” and “ought” and connects with the latter the term “ideal model”. The ideal model may be one of human world but first of all of the human being. In consequence Pawłowski’s demand for the design of ideal models turns out to be nothing but an usurpation for designing  of human obligations, of what man ought to be.

In contrast we read:

“Design should not tell people: this is how it should be. It should help society to find their own answer to such questions: who should it be? or how it could be?”[18].

The tension and struggle inherent in Crito’s aporia may be also found in Pawłowski’s passages which deal with the problem of need:

“The most important elements of the design process are omitted: recognition of needs”[19].

In the same way it is stated that future users’ needs make an absolute reference system and a validation of designers’ value judgments. But he wrote also:

“The given need can be questioned and denied by a designer”[20].

Finally he rejected the prejudice which sees the last resort and the origin of “good design” in needs and demanded one step more backwards, behind needs into their background and origin:

“The mechanism of action initiation is [...] more complicated and also includes processes preceding the formation of needs”[21].

From the category of “needs” he switched into the more fundamental category of “values”.[22]

4. The step-backwards method. [23]

Essentialism without the Ur-essence

“Matters which are obvious do not attract our attention, my personal experiences make me distrustful of everything which is considered obvious because often the essential id hidden there”[24].

The above mentioned case where Pawłowski expected design not only to set means but also and first of all to set ends, for the latter are conditions of former, demonstrates the way in which he used to tackle problems:

behind every problem attempt to find a more fundamental one;

do not stop at the typical common understanding of the problem, grasp deeper into its background to the point from which the antecedent understanding will loose its obviousness;

go back to those origins from which springs the feeling of the obviousness an question them, criticize.

In the light of the discussion of ends the whole classes of means may appear as fetishes of non-critically accepted goals. The fetishism of this kind resembles

“a situation when a marksman absorbed in aiming at the target’s center, forgets what target is” [25].

Pawłowski employed the same approach to research in the field of industrial design. In the course of the evolution of his understanding of industrial design he reached a decision to expect of it not only project-making but research too.

“Responsibility [...] will make industrial designers increase their professional skills, to base project-making on science and its research methodology”[26].

The idea was that all project-making inevitably assumes a certain knowledge, the latter is logically prior; the former is derivative. Hence: start to get knowledge of this particular aspect of useful objects which is the key-interest of industrial design.

In 1978 Pawłowski launched the research on seating position. committed to the step-backwards method (the description and term: “step-backwards method” not Pawlowski’s but mine) he defined the subject of his research in this way: not seats but on seating positions. This is to reflect the primacy of goals. Whereas within the casual order a seat determines a seating position within the teleological order the value of a seat derives from the value of a seating position – indeed, truly comfortable is not the seat but seating position.

In fact, while proceeding to research on this the designer has to focus on the sitter‑seat  relation, to say in more general way: on object‑man relationship. This relation is the subject matter of design but in the value order it should be considered from the viewpoint of man. From the viewpoint of a person seeing, buying, using etc object in question.

To conclude, the step-backwards method is a search for the primordial, the more fundamental and less contingent. What seemed to be last chain of reasoning and argument yesterday may turn into conditioned.

The method leads from the determines to is determinations and never hopes to stop on this way.

It leads to origins, fundamentals, presuppositions, to the essence, but the question arises: does the earliest, the origin Ur-essence exist?

Does the ultimate explanation, the point with no background, possessing nothing behind to probe into exists? That question is open, perhaps the way goes ad infinitum, no Ur-essence will be grasped.

[written in English, October 1989]