I agree with the designers in that design can be improved upon, and that it must possess certain attributes. Certain attributes that one of the designer’s specificed that I agree with is that good design must be utilitarian, unobstructive, honest, and easy to understand. Some other statements that I agreed with is that graphic design is not fine arts. I myself wasn’t able to discern that until after one of the designers made that distinguishment on camera. Other statements that I agreed with is that design must be created in an appropriate environment where everything works well, is organized well, that elicits us to want to interact with the design, and should also elicit nostalgia in the user/viewer (one of the examples used in the film was “That’s the chair that dad always sat in”).
One other thing that I did not discern too well about design that I learned on the film is that design is something that will be mass-produced, and that new design doesn’t last. Even though I did have a basic understanding of such, I did not think about it as deeply as the film went into both subjects.
Because of this film, my definition of design has actually changed. Originally, I was still thinking about design as in the fine arts sense; design is a composition of harmonizing or disharmonizing elements that represent an idea. Though it does technically hold true even in the graphic design sense, it was still only a sliver of the definition as a whole, and my understanding of design has expanded greatly because of Objectify and the designer’s interviewed. After seeing the film, my new definition for design is the harmonization of elements that allow the user to easy access of the product functions and the ability to have the user learn about the product in a thoughtless manner.