the antidesigner

When designing with new perspectives is unlearn everything you were told

Anti-design is a design movement that started in the 1960s and later evolved into Memphis design.

Anti-design was coined by designer Ettore Sottsass. His concept, which was advanced for the time, opposed cold, rational consumer goods that were experienced as impersonal and adhered perfectly to the conventions of 'form follows function'. Rather, anti-design objects must communicate with the viewer and not have a functional focus first. Anti-design impresses with the idea that good design contains less function and more beauty. This revolutionary idea that design should be sensual and exciting is still relevant today.

Anti-design was primarily concerned with design objects challenging their users. This was achieved above all by emphasising irony, embellishment, kitsch, and proportions that were perceived to be incorrect. There were also bright and spectacular colors. Anti-design was later taken up by postmodernism and its features still have strong aesthetic design effects today.

These days, that usually means simplicity. Designers are taught that simple, intuitive design is the key to a good user experience. The idea is that, while users want to see aesthetically pleasing websites, they don’t want to be distracted or have obstacles put in their way that could disrupt their journey on the website. Any extraneous design elements should be avoided.

No one can really tell what it is good design if the piece is accomplishing its function.

But this therm in this article means to go a bit more further than just breaking rules and make something different mixing many technics, because in the end that person is designing.

The notion of an antidesigner in this article comes more on the concept of not doing.

Of editing to the max what we are creating searching for the deeper intention and our ultimate voice as creators. Anti to all the design doesn't represent us in the deeper values we think are the ones we should take responsibility as shapers of the human future life.

As an industrial designer was hard to understand when my teacher told me , maybe phisical objects are not the answer to the problem you want to solve. Or when i finished a master degree on shoe design to realize choosing colors for 40 years and assist to fashion shows would not be full-filling. I found myself being the hardest critic of my own old me and every object that surrounded me, of everything i learned on college.

Maybe the decision of the things we decide not to do are more trascendental and important that the one we do. To say no to certain creations based on your values is building who you are as person and maker.

Can we start to say more no, even if its painfull mentally or economically and more yes to what our inner voice recognises as full-filling designs?