Here we will share a basic view of systems for design. The objectives are:
• to observe the web of relationships in complexity;
• to identify the integrative patterns of parts and wholes;
• to inquire into the principles of unity in diversity;
• to observe the limitless emerge from the limited (i.e., the hidden dimensions from the plain and obvious).
• to use systems as creative tools for design
There are plenty of resources for you to get into, if you are interested. To give you some sampling I use some samples of books from my personal library.
Ludwig von Bertalanffy's General Systems Theory
D’Arcy Thompson's classic On Growth and Form.
Le Corbusier classics Modular 1 and Modular 2.
Fritjof Capra's The Web of Life.
Bruno Munari’s Discovery of the Circle and Discovery of the Square.
Cecil Balmond—writer, artist, architect etc.
Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman's Rules of Play.
Of course, if you want to get into the wonder of proportion and construction the universe — some great classics.
And two giant people and books for graphic designer resources:
Karl Gerstner Designing Programmes.
Christopher Alexander The Phenomenon of Life.
There are many sources that, like Christopher’s books, get deeper and deeper into systems as an integral aspects of life, the universe, and the unseen energy waves, like sound and action, etc.
But first we have to ask ourselves: What is a system?
This is a question not unlike asking: What is design?
I will try to shed some light on this in the following material.
I will also answer the question: Why do we need systems?
To start I ask you if this a system?
The answer is: No, it is not.
Is this a system?
Again: No, it is not.
Is this a system? Again: no, it is not.
This is an object — a beautifully designed Shaker stairwell, but this is an object. And so were the other images I shared: they are objects.
And objects are not systems. This an important lessons to learn.
True, the objects we saw have systematic appearances because they are the products of processes that are systems. But objects as we generally view them are not systems.
Rather: a system is a special way of looking at an object as a whole!
Here are some other examples: the design of islamic mosaics.
In this spread sea shells are studied from a systems view.
And here is a study of proportional systems within musical harmony,
which Pythagorus discovered.
Here are two diagrams that tell us of the systems approach to design and design strategy.
Figure 1 describes design as classic way, the controlled business model.
Figure 2 describes a model commonly referred to as open innovation.
I will come back to these another time.
Here is a break down of Apple’s logo from a systems perspective.
Here is a grid superimposed on one of the pages for a magazine, to show how the parts in the layout function.
So, from this we can quickly see that a system is actually an abstraction arising from identifiable patterns that relate parts to a whole. Thus, a system only comes into being as a system when we can identify this as a way of looking at an object!
As visual designers we are inescapably creators of systems for every object we create. I began to see this fact when I was a student at Yale. There, one of my favorite teachers, Norman Ives, gave us an assignment which was to create some visual system—and left us to wonder in this very open way of presenting the assignment.
For that assignment I created this object—again, it was just this as an object.
Years later I came back to this study and created some variations with color yet retaining the same pattern of parts. I also created variations in the way the color in these parts involved a systemic approach, which I will briefly explain.
However I want to underscore that these variations are all products of a systemic processes.
This is how the pattern evolves from a systems point of view.
The base unit is a set of two squares each having a square within.
The green square shows the smallest size square (#1) within.
The red square shows the largest size square (#8) within.
Then the squares start to move into spirals as indicated by the arrows: the green square moves out to the left and down, etc; the red square set moves out to the right and up, etc. However, each time there is a move before it spiraling to a corner the inside square changes in size in a steps of 8 sizes, with the smallest enlarging in 8 steps, while the largest becomes smaller in 8 steps. (smallest is #1; largest is #8), the smallest getting larger. After the 8th step the inner squares change to becomes smaller our larger again respectively. And then this continues as the objects spiral outward from the center.
Here is another example of the spirals using numbers.
We have just viewed the object from a systems perspective, which shows how the parts relate to the whole and as a pattern of operation.
Of course, we can play further with these parts and systems and combine them with other systems—just as we play with notes in music, or with words in spoken or written language.
As in this example, that resulted as an experiment when I was printing the original serigraphs.
Here is another example of such overprinting.
By using such "chance operations" as a system I let allowed to let whatever happened in the results as a new way of seeing the "old" or predictable — a topic of great interest to me but for another day.
But once this door was opened to new ways of seeing I started to play also with the original object in three dimensions.
So again, to summarize, a system is a special way of looking at an object as a whole. Therefore, a system is an abstraction arising from identifiable patterns that relate as a whole. The key word is pattern.
It is now important to note that human beings are intrinsically organizers and pattern seekers. While on the one hand we don’t think of ourselves as systems thinkers, and even tend to rebel against anything that appears to impose the very idea of a system upon us, the paradox is that we are pattern and systems seekers.
Just look at ourselves. We all tend to “organize” to one degree or another: in our daily routines from how and when you get up, brush your teeth, eat, sit, walk; how you get yourself to an appointment; how you organize your day, the week; how you interact with friends; how you organize your desk, your room, etc., etc.
Also, much in our lives is organized for us — like your schedule of classes, this lecture offered within your class, or the way banks hold your money and require methods for transactions, or the way we navigate a city, your phone, or laptop, or a book.
Still, we have choices and adapt, to one degree or another, what we need and accept according to our own habits and personal preferences.
So, being pattern seekers what does that word pattern mean?
A pattern is an arrangement that reveals some structure or configuration, ... by design.
Moreover, pattern seeking is a natural phenomena for the mechanisms of the mind. Perception and thinking reflect the patterning of relational phenomena that is essential to the concept of meaning; i.e., without relationship meaning is not possible. And the more we can take in what is in relationship the more we are able to understand.
Again, perception is an active, pattern-seeking process closely allied to thinking. But most of us actually experience “seeing” as a passive “taking in” process.....which means that we passively taken what we see what we see and experience, but don’t really perceive as much as we can if we were to actually pay attention within the experience itself!
For example, looking at this means to discover how your eyes immediately look to organize the many little squares into some cohesive pattern — while they appear to group themselves into swirling patterns.
This phenomena was recognized by psychologists as a “gestalt” principle — a German word that cannot be exactly translated but for which words like pattern, form, shape and organized whole come relatively close. This brought on Gestalt Theory and Gestalt Psychology.
Another example is the operation of closure: or our filling in what appears incomplete. This so-called Kanizsai triangle is such an example. Ask yourself how many triangles you see?
(And then you must realize that there are NO triangles exist in this object — there is only the illusion of triangles!
As you can see, your perception is very active!
Here are some 3-d variations of this system developed by the Human Technology Labs.
But if you turn the little black shapes the other ways the pattern disappears.
And numerous psychology tests have come out of this to test the abilities of individuals to visualize and think. The Rorschach ink-blot test is one main example.
The Chinese tangram puzzle, uses 7 pieces only to form a silhouette pattern. And it is interesting to note that the moving of pieces around makes you see and think easier.
Or here is a test to establish which configurations in the right column have the figure on the left embedded in them.
(Answer is: b and d.)
Or in this image you are asked to identify which drawings of a piece of string would form a knot if the ends were pulled tight.
(Answer is: b, c, and e.)
And this test asks you to figure out which way pulley “X” turns — a or b?
(Answer: X goes in the direction b.)
Thought is a process that patterns relationships to construct meaning.
For example take the word DESIGN.
We all think we “know” this word, and know its meaning, yet each of us thinks differently what the word represents because of our different sensibilities and perspectives.
Most of us view design as a noun—a word for a product.
But we can also view it as a verb — as in design as “process”; or, as a language (that is, system for form and structure), or as for aesthetics, or as the “poetics of the visual.”
The relationships we bring to the concept is a patterning of relationships—which results in what we call meaning.
Designers are most certainly pattern seekers — well illustrated in this famous diagram by Charles Eames. The diagram examines the general references concerning the design problem: #1) for the design office, #2) for the client, #3) for society, and #4) where the designer can work. It also notes these areas are not static as they grow and develop over time and influence others. Putting more than one client into this picture builds relationships, which formulates new meanings.
So this diagram reflects the patterning of interconnections and interdependence of relationships, which in turn pattern the way we view things and what actions might be needed. In other words, in our search for meaning (or relationships) understanding the patterns or systems helps illuminate complexity.
Thus, to understand meaning depends entirely on our ability to see things in relationship — i.e., meaning depends on our capacity to see the operating pattern of cause and effect. The more of relational dynamics we can take in the more we can understand.
But then again, as the American writer Marilyn Ferguson once said: our biggest failure is our failure to see patterns.
What she means by this is that we tend to NOT pay attention to what is in front of us, to what we are actually experiencing – from moment to moment, and for that matter to understand and know ourselves.
Another example is the breath. We take breathing for granted, we don’t think about it, it just happens! Yet, breathing can be viewed as a system operating in a vast network of relationships. For example, we know that deep breathing calms the emotions.
What we don’t realize is that at the same time deep breathing stimulates vital hormone secretions, improves digestion and metabolism, permits deep sleep, reduces time required for complete rest, heightens awareness, thought and memory
Systems are integrated wholes that arise as identifiable patterns.
In other words, a system is a total working unit, feeding back relational values that would otherwise NOT exist to each of its segments.
Just look at this phenomenon of rings of water as the result of dropping an object in that water: the development of a series of mesmerizing concentric circles.
And then compare that to this, when we throw a bunch of stones in water and we perceive chaos . . .
But actually, by paying closer attention we will discover that every stone, and every drop of water from every splash falls back into the water make exactly the same series of concentric circles.
But we can take this even further. Science tells us there is more to what we see. By slowing down this interaction of circles we discover that the rings always intersect each other in a logarithmic pattern — a truth for all circles made by every stone dropped in that water and by every drop of water that falls back in that field of water. I find this quite awesome!
To expand our view of the water droplet even further, see what actually happens in observing the physics of the water drop (a 2-minute video that shows a drop of water falling into a puddle at 2000 frames a second).
This Shaker staircase shown earlier is another translation of such “awe” because when we look at this it resonates with that “intrinsic” sense within us toward wholeness and integration: that sense of harmony and unity.
This principle of wholeness is what the quantum physicist David Bohm referred to as the implicate order found throughout our universe — which complexity often translates into a sense of beauty or “awe” if you will.
Hence a system is a total working unit, feeding back relational values that would not otherwise exist to each of its segments. In other words:
the whole is much more than the sum of its parts.
And we find this operating all around us, in subtle or more visible ways, which especially exists everywhere in nature. Sea shells, like this nautilus, are more obvious examples — but when we pay attention, we also discover dynamic measures of harmonic proportion—which I will go into as the topic for my next lecture.
Now once again: a system is not a thing, is not an object .... like this plant, or the nautilus shell, or the shaker staircase . . .
A system is a special way of looking at an object as a whole!
A system is an abstraction arising from identifiable patterns that relate as a whole. Again, a system only becomes a system when we can identify this way of looking at an object!
Please understand that this special way of looking at a thing
can also translate into actions and ways of working. In other words, a system is also a way to construct things to function as a whole . . . which always reflects in the design process—whether these are constructed methodologies, or more intuitively “felt” ways of working.
Now let me briefly round out this lecture with some broader aspects of systems thinking. One book I highly recommend is The Web Of Life by the physicist Fritjof Capra. While the book is about living systems and is therefore not considered a "book on design" I feel it is fundamental to design thinking.
For example, in the front Capra quote Chief Seattle from a speech he gave in 1854, addressing the settlers to take responsibility for the land they came to inhabit and to respect the native people: This we know. All things are connected like the blood which unites one family. Whatever befalls the earth, befalls the sons and daughters of the earth.
To reflect further on what Chief Seattle said I usually end the talk by showing the film Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames. Most of you have seen this movie already from your Freshman year or elsewhere (having high interest for art and design teachers) — and while it’s a wonderful movie I could see over and over again, I choose a slight change to share with you this fact: the film is an adaptation of the book “Cosmic View: the universe in 40 jumps” (1957) by Dutch educator Kees Boeke.
First the fact that Kees Boeke was a very creative and insightful educator who established a school in Holland that is still flourishing. Now, it happened that I was born Dutch and grew up in Holland after WW2, and in my late teens ended up attending the Kees Boeke school (that’s me in the middle of the picture).
In 1957 an American publisher published the book Cosmic View. This book was based on an idea on a simple assignment for young children with the objective to help them gain a broader awareness of relational perspective: the power of 10.
This starts with defining a ONE meter square area of space which children were asked to study what it contains and how that defines its content. Image #1 starts this system with a woman sitting in a chair.
The next step multiplies that space by TEN. Children were asked to try to view this by expanding the view to 10 meters square. Image #2 reveals this, but since it did not yet reveal the whole building they added a whale to help identify scale and relational factors for objects to study. Then the assignment continues with the power of ten, #3 showing a space of 100 meters square and #4 a space of 1,000 meters square. This goes on into the universe that engulfs this space.
At some point during this trip into outer space, we return to the first square —which then moves from that one-meter square space (#0) into the reading of space from the minus power of ten perspective (#-1). In that way the "cosmic view" continues by the same measurements for the inner view of space.
Ten years later Charles and Ray Eames made the movie some of you will have seen simple called The Powers of Ten.
Now one more time: a “system” is not only a way of looking at something—but in return it is also a way of telling us something. In other words, a systems view will influence you and change your point of view. For example, the ways in which mankind has studied the solar system have resulted in many ideas about its structure. The double image in black on the far left gives two views: the top shows our earth as part of a geocentric system, while the one at the bottom is the heliocentric system realized by Copernicus.