The most evocative experiences -- those that have lasting power, that alter one's perspectives, apprehension, appreciation, and actions -- aren't designed. They're composed. The distinction isn't subtle. Compositions are easy to identify and remember: everyone can cite his or her favorite composed experiences. Designs, for the most part, aren't so easy to identify or remember. In many cases, they're not even designed to be memorable; they're designed to be imperceptible.
My brilliant partner Debra Jane, a talented creator of great experiences -- in fashion, dance, art, and story-telling -- sent me down this thought-path when, one night, she announced, “You know, I'm not so smart...but I sure know how to concatenate!”
“Compose” has many meanings, but the two to which I refer (from Dictionary.com) are:
1. To make or form by combining things, parts, or elements.
...and...
2. To create (a musical, literary, or choreographic work).
Composition is an act of creative combination, working with elements in the environment. The assemblage that results may or may not find an audience or serve a purpose. The composer knows this going in: his or her motivation is simply to compose.
“Design” also has many meanings, but central to its definition, in the sense that designers use it, are:
1. To form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan.
...and...
2. To plan and fashion the form and structure of an object, work of art, decorative scheme, etc.
Design begins with a purpose in mind. Commercial design has as its first purpose to serve a client. The designer must succeed in this purpose.
Composition draws on inspiration from deep, often hidden emotional, spiritual, and psychological aquifers. Design occurs largely in the mind. The difference in results is profound, especially when it comes to creating experiences.
The acts of composition and design thus start from different premises and have different intended outcomes. Good experiences may be what each act is intended to engender, but one act is artistry and the other, science and engineering. Increasingly, I'm led to believe that artistry is key to successful creation of the best experiences. The composer may fail, of course; only a relatively few composers achieve excellence; whereas, there are many good designers. But design thinking, although probably more reliable as a methodology, inherently limits the designer's artistry. It places strictures on design in order that a design should work; these strictures include basing designs on reasonably hard data and not deviating too far from audience preferences or too greatly challenging existing behaviors.
Also, a design's consequences, for that design to be considered a success, must be measurable. Compositions, on the other hand, must merely be memorable.
My colleague Barry Howard creates exhibitions and museums. He and I are part of a team preparing a plan for the US Pavilion at the Shanghai 2010 World Expo. Barry has a long and successful career in his line of work, beginning with the pioneering Coca-Cola Pavilion at the 1964 New York Worlds Fair. Barry is an artist. Each project begins with a storyline, a visionary narrative, which then is translated into its physical evocation. Barry is a composer of experiences.
Barry related to me a relevant anecdote. Walt Disney had captured the American imagination on the silver screen when he decided to turn his studio's creations into a physical place, to be called “Disneyland.” There was no one with prior experience creating a theme park on the scale Disney envisioned, so he called upon his studio team -- writers, illustrators, animators, musicians, and so forth -- to come up with the plans for Disneyland. The result was a remarkable collection of experiences, magnificent and small, that remains an icon of creativity and spirit (some would say, chutzpah) to this day. No one on the team considered himself or herself a “designer.” Its members considered themselves artists, the original “Imagineers.” Over the years, the original Imagineers were replaced by individuals with backgrounds in business, technology and social sciences, and design. Imagineering became something of a science. As most of us who experienced the original Disneyland agree, the result has been less than sterling. The new parks created by these Imagineers, for all their splendor, efficiency, and effectiveness as revenue generators, didn't manifest the same excitement as the original Disneyland. The rides were stupendous but numbing and the overall experience of the new Disney theme parks was one of grandiosity, not edification. New management at Disney is now working hard to turn the parks around and restore the creative luster that the second-generation Imagineers' calipers and mechanics almost erased. Composers are back in charge.
Another of my experience-creating heroes is the landscape architect and educator, Lawrence Halprin. At a landscape architecture conference I attended at the University of Washington, he issued a powerful edict: “Design not with forms, but with forces.” Halprin excels at apprehending deep meanings in the physical environment and then creating compositions -- literally scoring the subject environment and things in it -- to produce wonderful experiences. Anna Halprin, the renowned choreographer, inspired Lawrence's approach. He is a choreographer of environmental experiences. Halprin values design methodology as a means of realizing his visions -- but always, his visions are preeminent.
It may be somewhat disturbing for you, as it is for me, to acknowledge that artistry, not science or engineering, is the sine qua non for creating the best experiences. (Architects who excel, for example, consider themselves artists of space.) Artistry, sadly, can't be learned. It's an inherent talent that can be improved upon, but not taught. Artists must mingle with designers for designs to be infused with compositional fire. Otherwise, design remains an interesting, challenging, but ultimately mundane process. The best experiences aren't designed. They're composed.
1. Paula Thornton on September 11, 2007 10:14 AM writes...
Bob: You've provided a similar perspective on my recent discovery of the not-so-subtile distinctions of 'synthesis' vs. 'analysis'. Design relies on being able to see new edges from which to bring forth new 'wholes' from a mass of parts.
We rescue the unobvious...we make the implicit explicit.
But Disney also embraced leveraging the implicit for explicit results. Only available through first-hand accounts, the Disney culture is still replete with key stories that shape thinking in that environment. After hearing but a few of such stories and the examples of how they changed the thinking and the results (complete with Disney movie clips as illustration), I immediately sought a book that captures such stories. I found none...
These are a critical legacy left by Walt.
Permalink to Comment2. William Bardel on September 17, 2007 7:09 AM writes...
Bob, I think you are confusing a matter of practice vs. structure. Composing and design are essentially the same thing as practices. Yes, composing is more clearly associated with storytelling and narrative structures. In contrast, design is term with a broader, general application that is not so specific to particular types of structure.
So if you are talking about building experiences, obviously the storytelling and narrative structures involved in composing make it seem a more powerful approach. But is is equally possible to design a compelling narrative because it is an act of planning and shaping, and therefore I don't think composing necessarily is necessarily a "better" approach than design in this situation. The key is not to focus on the practice but the structure you are creating.
Bottom line, creating something that includes a narrative results in a more powerful, evocative experience because it is more closely aligned to how we see daily life and share information. Whereas creating objects and non-narrative structures (such as lists?) is less compelling because of their more inherent artificiality and the need for us to create a story for them (what I call the "translation factor").
Permalink to Comment3. Bob Jacobson on September 17, 2007 2:55 PM writes...
Thanks for the Comments.
To my TE coauthor Paula: I appreciate the distinction between implicit and explicit, but it's orthogonal to the contradiction I perceive between composition and design. Compositions and designs can each contain elements that are implicit that are gathered together and arranged for explicit ends -- but composition does it artfully, while design does it "engineer-ingly." At least, this is my impression, especially as design ceases to be inspired by personal fire within and instead becomes a team sport, with team members adhering to a priori programs intended to meet specific client needs.
To William, who makes some important observations on nuance: Composition is moving elements around to see how they cohere and express an inherent vision. Its outcome is uncertain, but that's part of its beauty and mystery, and an incentive to do even more especially if the outcome is outstanding. Design is (as you point out) about instituting structure for problem definition, characterization, and solution. Its outcome had better be more certain, since time is money and designs have to be done well and on time to earn it.
To my way of seeing things, it's a rule of nature that a composed experience will be richer and permeate further, be better shared, encourage positive action, etc., than a designed experience. One has soul, the other has technique. It's not exactly a fair comparison.
Permalink to Comment