In order to determine where the limits of design actually are, I first looked at how design is difined. Charles Eames describes design as follows:
One could describe “Design” as a plan for arranging elements to achieve a particular purpose.
Charles Eames
Eames does not see design in this case as the arrangement of certain elements, but much more as a plan for the arrangement of the elements. A design can therefore be applied, copied and reproduced over and over again. If you research the Eames, it quickly becomes clear that they will be remembered for their chairs, but their work contained many other areas such as toys, tools, radios, buildings, films, exhibitions and much more. This alignment already shows that design is something universal for the Eames. Something that can be applied to very different areas of life and not just to one sub-area.
Later in the video, Eames answers the question about the limits of design with the counter-question about the limits of problems. According to Eames, there can also be design wherever there are problems.
Design has continued to evolve over time. From an approach that is primarily interested in the arrangement of objects to an increasingly strategic approach. Newer design approaches such as experiential design, service design, business design, organizational design and system design have emerged and deal with problems that are becoming more and more abstract. In these areas, design is linked to social responsibility. So the limits to which design was restricted have also widened.
When design is about creating better future prospects for people, we do it because we, as humans, are interested in change the world towards desirable scenarios. Design and its limits can be changed with society. But I think that the other way around, society can also be changed by shifting the boundaries of design.
