“We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.

All art is quite useless.”

- Oscar Wilde
Preface to “The Picture of Dorian Gray”

Of course, we all know of Wilde’s penchent for irony, but I wonder if this pithy statement could possibly extend to design as well, in particular the type of design that exists only as a result of the vanity of the designer?

If a design serves only the aesthetic, without providing a solution to a genuine need, then is it really valid as a design? Is it just sitting pretty as another useless piece of folly that serves no other purpose other than to just take up space?

Of course, this statement is not to be taken literally, coming from Wilde, who had a masterly ironic turn of phrase. Wilde did not mean that art was “useless” insofar as it was irrelevant and should be scorned. His own explanation clearly says this, in his letter to a correspondant of the time [from here]:

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————

My dear Sir

Art is useless because its aim is simply to create a mood. It is not meant to instruct, or to influence action in any way. It is superbly sterile, and the note of its pleasure is sterility. If the contemplation of a work of art is followed by activity of any kind, the work is either of a very second-rate order, or the spectator has failed to realise the complete artistic impression.
A work of art is useless as a flower is useless. A flower blossoms for its own joy. We gain a moment of joy by looking at it. That is all that is to be said about our relations to flowers. Of course man may sell the flower, and so make it useful to him, but this has nothing to do with the flower. It is not part of its essence. It is accidental. It is a misuse. All this is I fear very obscure. But the subject is a long one.

Truly yours,

Oscar Wilde.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Design is irrelelevant if it does not serve a purpose. It is useless in it’s application if it does not solve a problem or meet the needs of the people. It must look good, sure, but, more importantly, it must DO something!

Design embraces aesthetics as a vital component in an otherwise bigger picture.

There are many designers who design for the sake of design, others design for their ego, or design for the benefit of others,… or otherwise? Which one is the real designer, as we commonly hold the term to mean? [Although in reality, all designers share those traits, to varying degrees.]

Without a real, useful purpose, what value is there in design?

What do you think? Do you agree or disagree or couldn’t care less?

Am I using too many question marks?