Good Design is

A fish doesn’t know it is in water,’ to describe it plainly, a fish is only brought to the realization of its environment when extracted from it, that it is reminded of the presence of its atmosphere, exclusively as a consequence of its absence. It is to say that the continual simplicity and fluidity of life is appreciated only in the circumstance of the unforeseen deprivation of the reliance on it. The same implements upon our constant dependence on design and technology that we analyze our most basic actions when our default state of being, that which is in a continual flow, is acted upon by an abrupt event of malfunction or eradication.
The second session of ‘Design and the Human Condition,’ brushed upon the fundamentals of multiple philosophers, namely Heidegger, to draw explanations on good design practice. The primary prerequisite for good design is said to lie in its invisibility that which decreases the effort of conscious labor, is said to be a good design. Good design relies on its superior qualitative stipulations to ease the user while improving the essence of the experience. It is only under the condition that the flow of the process observes a disruption or an obstacle acting upon it that an individual takes into consideration the properties of a specific design. To understand this through an example, an individual may put in little to no thought into how they sit on a chair until the chair poses a sense of discomfort to them.
The second principle of design notes that its production may not be possible in isolation, that good design makes use of all characteristics of the specifications of the region, culture, thorough research, among others. It is elemental for design research, analysis, and production to take into consideration all aspects of product ecology, primarily materiality, relevance, usefulness, and significance or value.
The third, particularly significant principle, is that no design can operate in isolation, that technologies exist in codependence, to say this means to question any design in isolation, highlighting its inability to function separately. That a house is only a house because of its foundation and the system of technology that occupies it, and that it is a totality of technological products.
Here I take mention briefly the philosophy of a German philosopher, Martin Heidegger, that depicts human reality to be lost often in the inauthentic and everyday life. He concerns himself with the nature of understandingly being in the world. While a person’s world includes conceptual and imaginative realms like design, Heidegger’s examples primarily come from the world of physical artifacts and their perceptual encounters.
A particularly interesting debate during the session was that of the distinction between art and design. The difference explained was that art is an explicit encounter in a specific situation while the prerequisites for design lie in its invisibility and enhanced features of functionality, that art is explicitly met with, while design is predominantly invisible.
To conclude, this session brought about a sense of sensitivity to understanding design and its scope extending to the material manifestation of culture and society. Design allows for a possible shaping of culture, and probably even human life.