The transformation from impression to expression: A model for visualising different viewpoints and goals in craft, art, design and company work.

Design is often described as a profession where the result of the work is future oriented. Herbert Simon defined it as work that aims at “changing existing situations into preferred ones” . This may refer to a design process where the result can be very unpredictable even if the goal is thoroughly outlined. David Pye has portrayed this performance as “workmanship of risk” which differs from “workmanship of certainty” which is production performed by industry. There is limited knowledge regarding the design profession in manufacturing companies. Descriptions of why and for what industry shall use designers cover a broad spectrum of design competence, from an omnipotent saviour at the centre of strategic product planning to someone who applies nice colours to objects at the end of a production process. Artists were the first group with specific creative competence that were employed by industries to work with product design. For artists in industry, the social aspects of their work — related to democracy, social equality and cultural education — were important. Working in manufacturing industry gave them both economic security and an arena in which to achieve idealistic objectives. The shift to a professionalisation of design meant that the purpose of the work changed. It also meant a shift in both the influences used to perform work and the expressions illustrating the result. To understand the transference from an impression to a visual component in a product, a time aspect can be added. In this way it is possible to illustrate the variations as an effect of different working processes, but above all as a result based on different aims. In this paper a model is presented. Four professions — and four aspects of their working processes — are compared: artisans, artists in industry, marketers and designers. In reality, the professions consist of heterogeneous groups that themselves have disparate strategies, goals and ways of working, but by simplifying and focusing the attention on differences, it is possible to understand the respective outcomes of the working processes. The aspects compared are: impression ¬— influences and the effects due to references outside the individual; mark — external memory: common values and interpretations from the surrounding culture; imprint — internal memory: the effect of impression revised by the individual; expression — the way in which an individual manifests his or her interpretation or point of view. Is it the way we posit ourselves on a timescale in reference to input and goal that causes variations in the design result? The model illustrates significant differences between the professions, from the craftsman, who attends to traditions and the surrounding culture, and aims at a contemporary product, to the designers’ way of using both impressions from history, contemporary influences and internal memories (bricolage), and aims at products for future use. The model also illustrates the discrepancies between working processes in marketing and design. Today many companies acknowledge the need to invest in design proficiency, and accept a design process with a goal that is less predetermined, even though profound knowledge of the possibilities and limitations of the design profession is scarce. An increased comprehension of different work processes and viewpoints can contribute to better understanding and a more fruitful collaboration between stakeholders in the design process