The June 2019 piece is missing.
The struggle following for me is whether to write up a new piece and call it “June 2019”, which would actually happen in July, or to simply skip June.
Am I cheating myself if I use a fake date? No, because I would know it is a fake date. Am I unconsciously trying to cheat other readers? No, because I cannot identify a real motive behind it.
Should I write a new piece with a fake date then? True, it is only early July. True, sticking to a reasonable routine is critical for incremental advancement. True, I should follow a rule I made for myself because I am supposed to be responsible as an independent human being to make rules that would convince myself.
But I realize that I should embrace the fact that no matter how strong the motivation is, I am not a being equipped with 100% successful rate to follow any rule for actions.
I am ultimately not a human only for rules.
I skip “June 2019”.
When I was smaller, I saw success as solving conflicts between the opposites, such as male vs female features, collective vs individual preference, functionality first vs form first, etc.
As I become a little older, I am seeing success as optimized composure of different pieces, a process for which decision, filtering, depth and synergy is all needed.
I start to believe architecture is about taste.
Being honest has lots of advantages.
One of them is to be able to embrace limitations. With understanding of limitation on details, we make abstractions precise. With understanding of limitation on cognitions, we give authority to our own senses.
A second advantage is progress. Making a way towards a meaningful destination is only possible when the will is distinguishable from a response to stimulation.
The key is to find a “Key”.
Whereas a purely abstract principle is not applicable to the real world, an alternative is required. By definition, this alternative has to be empirical in parts, besides, tolerance for errors and room for improvement should be allowed.
Does this lead to empirically based “incremental improvement”? Compatible with practice, this path is most likely to be used as default. However, the practicality, or the convenience, is not in a position to replace the abstract, the reason for which is completely legitimate to be preserved as non-logical in a context of creation.
One step further is to request, intentionally, a conversation with intuition. Explicitly, the request should be being focused, not analytics focused. The explicitness can be a handy helper to filter noises.
I would say the reality of human beings is always mixed with representations, de facto mostly resultant ones that differ significantly from expectations by all.
The sense of juvenile, which to stick to, look for, and exist with.
Educating is a bilateral action. This is one. It is also bidirectional—both inward and outward. This is two. Since these aspects are all connected together, leveraging them would be of low margin.
Very long time ago I told myself that preserving the sensitivity to sadness is essential. Today, I look into my mind, wondering how it is possible to stay quiet without appearing passive. I could find even more “descriptions” to fill the room in my mind so that the guest of “feeling sad” wouldn’t have a seat for this party. Fair enough, a party full of masks.
Yes, paradigms from the old design world is being overturned by the internet, to which many objections are meaningful. But I believe designers, the type as a culture observer and innovator, should embrace changes faster than average and push the way towards the next marginal point of expression.
Only a civic place nurtures intellectual growth. Free trade and free markets, in some occasions, are backed up by beliefs. A layer of hypocrisy is inherently embedded in productization of design.
Let's talk about "value" today. Let's not talk about ideologies, morals, or hardcore principles of certain philosophies. Instead, let's talk about a narrative.
You have a genius sketch of an object that represents your ultimate ideal, and a vacant land. Now you want to make your sketch real by building something. You will have to face the reality of materials, cost, craftsmanship, and availability of scale on the basis of a human being. You are smart enough to quickly realize that this "built object" is no way what you were original sketching, and very likely you won't be disappointed as long as the process of development is validated. But would you ever be satisfied, instead of getting peace out of compromising, without an essential backing behind the process?
Compromising is inevitable, and the principle of this action can be volatile as well as absolutely empirical. It is your freedom—or the manifestation of your free will—to make the choice, and it is not the point. The point is that pushing through the other path, out of practice, to find the backing "value" is a rewarding exercise, even if by nature the statement above is a posteriori.
A simple solution: clean up all the irrelevant and make the most beautiful thing.
I have been speculating what should be the core value for me as a designer. The most aspiration comes from the desire to embrace imagination, to enjoy ultimate beauty and to be enriched by the depth of life itself. Why is paradigm important? Let's take it as a part of conversation, or a tool for a fighting, and that's all.
Part of the content has been deleted and rebuilt again and again. Like what some other beings do, this is the authentic struggle striving for something that cannot be named. However, despite knowing that nobody is to blame me, I would feel bad for leaving it behind if merely because of its incapability to be named...