In “A Talking Head Dreams of a Perfect City,” David Byrne describes what he loves in different cities.
There’s an old joke that you know you’re in heaven if the cooks are Italian and the engineering is German. If it’s the other way around you’re in hell. In an attempt to conjure up a perfect city, I imagine a place that is a mash-up of the best qualities of a host of cities. The permutations are endless. Maybe I’d take the nightlife of New York in a setting like Sydney’s with bars like those in Barcelona and cuisine from Singapore served in outdoor restaurants like those in Mexico City. Or I could layer the sense of humor in Spain over the civic accommodation and elegance of Kyoto. Of course, it’s not really possible to cherry pick like this — mainly because a city’s qualities cannot thrive out of context. A place’s cuisine and architecture and language are all somehow interwoven. But one can dream.
Byrne’s article is fascinating, but so is this inital warning about singling out individual elements — the idea that cherry picking is a pipe dream. Qualities cannot thrive out of context. Everything is interwoven.
The soul of a carrot
A related example (popularized by Michael Pollan): the soul of a carrot. Scientists keep trying to isolate the part of a carrot that makes it healthy. They have identified 15 carotenes in the carrot, yet the resulting carotene pills don’t produce the health benefits you get from munching on actual carrots. Pollan explains why the reductive reasoning of food scientists is problematic:
We know carrots are good for you, right? People have been eating them for a long time and the assumption was that what was good in cancer preventing in the carrot was the beta carotene. What makes it orange. So we extracted that and we made these supplement pills and we gave them to people and low and behold in certain populations like people who drink a lot would get sicker, were more likely to get cancer on beta carotene and the scientists kind of scratched their head. There is a couple of explanations. We don’t know. But one may be that the beta carotene is not the key ingredient. You know there are 50 other carotenes in carrots.
Food is incredibly complex. It’s a wilderness, you know, we don’t know what’s going on deep in the soul of a carrot. And we shouldn’t kid ourselves to think we can reduce it to these chemicals. It also may be some synergies between different thing. Beta carotene is also found in the company of chlorophyll, maybe it’s that combination that contributes to health. The point is we don’t, as eaters, need to know what makes carrots work. We can eat carrots, they taste good, they’re good for you. It’s that simple.
Isolating the healthy part of the carrot is harder than it looks. There are hidden combinations at work. There’s a soul there that we don’t completely understand.
The sum is often greater than the parts
In today’s isolate then cut-and-paste world, it can be tempting to go around trying to single out just the best parts of things. Think of the “show three comps” method of delivering designs to a client. Inevitably the same thing happens: The client picks a few elements from design #1, a couple from #2, and a few others from #3. Then the designer(s) try to frankenstein these pieces together into a “perfect” hybrid — which turns out to be quite imperfect. All that cherry picking destroys any sense of cohesiveness. The end product looks like a collage instead of something unified.
When you cherry pick, you lose integrity. You lose the below-the-surface aspects of what makes something great. You cut the invisible strings that hold the whole thing together. You wind up with a mash-up instead of something that’s got soul.
That’s not to say you shouldn’t strive to improve, refine, and combine ideas. Just keep in mind the price you’re paying along the way.
Jeffrey Tang
on 23 Nov 09Soul of a carrot – love it. Great points about context. This is a great way to look at the constant struggle between the small picture and the big picture.
Marc Tiedemann
on 23 Nov 09Great article. Couldn’t agree more.
Jamie, Baymard Institute
on 23 Nov 09Solid advice, and it really apply to a bunch of things.
If we’re talking web design, flows are an obvious example, where you shouldn’t design each screen in isolation but rather as a part of the entire flow.
Rick
on 23 Nov 09Good points. For the sports enthusiasts out there, check out the Cincinnati Reds recently built stadium for a perfect example of this problem. They basically looked around, cherry picked some interesting ideas, and cobbled them together to produce a stadium without a soul. Then compare it to PNC Park in Pittsburgh. Worlds apart.
mTp
on 23 Nov 09That is one great big assumption. A human’s design (or three) are as great as the one nature builds (like in a carrot).
Aren’t you walking into the same fallacy that the scientists are? That we can create or recreate something that is perfect. The problem is not the sum of its parts. The problem is assuming that we humans can use our know how to create perfection (the 3 designs).
A client picking things they like sends the designer back to the drawing board, maybe. But it still sends the designer like the scientist to propose another composition, still lesser than whatever perfect is. The advantage here is hopefully the designer (scientist) have learned something and can get ever closer to the ideal (especially more close than the client/ nonscientist).
Getting closer …
mTp
Si
on 23 Nov 09Then the designer(s) try to frankenstein these pieces together into a “perfect” hybrid — which turns out to be quite imperfect. All that cherry picking destroys any sense of cohesiveness. The end product looks like a collage instead of something unified.
To the client it may be their idea of perfection!
mark
on 23 Nov 09Great article, thank you for that. And I definitely agree.
Jake
on 23 Nov 09Fantastic article. Matt is a powerhouse.
Fredrik Bränström
on 23 Nov 09You don’t necessarily have to lose anything of value though. As long as you end up with something that may be an amalgam of ideas yet it has a new soul. This is more about aesthetics and thus very subjective.
Now, as for the metaphysical carrot mysticism… The sum is greater than the parts, but the sum is in the eye of the beholder. It seems like it sort of has a soul, because our knowledge of a carrot (and human nature, to take another example) is severely limited at the moment. We touch and smell it. We bite it. There’s nothing else that tastes like a carrot, right?
Yet we SHOULD kid ourselves that we can reduce the carrot to chemicals – because that is all that it is. It’s carbon and hydrogen and nitrogen and calcium and iron… It’s the organization of the molecules (the DNA specifically) that make the carrot work to continually reconstruct itself and grow – you might call that a soul but that’s out of fashion these days. Its taste is unique because it’s a unique combination of chemicals that our tastebuds recognize.
I’m pretty confident that we’ll continue to uncover all the complex relationships between different organizations of matter and the forces of nature that fling them around the cosmos. All we need is more smarts. Look how far we’ve come.
It’s the same with creative work. We find out what works to produce phenomenological pleasure (good design) and what eases productivity. We identify pieces that work and put them together to build something greater than we started out with. Then we build something on top of that, and so on and so forth.
Fredrik Bränström
on 23 Nov 09In the first case we try to reverse-engineer nature itself, biochemical products of evolution, and in the latter we adapt our creations (websites, works of art, computer programs) to impress and interact better with (slightly more complex) products of evolution — human minds.
Morley
on 23 Nov 09To be fair though, carrots are terrible. It’s only a short step from eating wood.
Fredrik Bränström
on 23 Nov 09No, they’re okay… I chew down a whole carrot now and then, if mostly for the nutritional value. They can certainly be gastronomically elevated by combination (!) with harmonious flavors.
Angel Vallejo
on 23 Nov 09Scientists seem to think ALL can be scrutinized, analysed and broken down into small pieces. It’s not like that: besides “the things themselves”, there are “the relationships between the things themselves”. That is, precisely, the problem with the attempts of reduction of everything. Thanks for the post, Mr. Fried.
Angel Grablev
on 23 Nov 09Great article :) i totally agree.
Stan Hansen
on 24 Nov 09I hate cake. I hate carrots. I love carrot cake. The same could be said from design. My evolution from concept to final design often takes many different paths. Some clients I jump right in to wordpress because I know that is where I want to end up. Some clients I hand code and design through photoshop. Others I start with a good old fashioned sketchpad.
Anonymous Coward
on 24 Nov 09and this is why i eat nutraloaf
Anders Eriksson
on 24 Nov 09It reminds me of the “Stop Sign Designed by Comittee” http://usedwigs.com/video-stop-sign-designed-by-committee/
I think it’s really funny!
mattmc
on 24 Nov 09So now we’re defining soul = complexity?
(btw, I like cake and carrots, but I hate carrot cake.)
used toyota landcruiser
on 25 Nov 09Sean Cruz
Chris Whamond
on 26 Nov 09The same is true of vintage guitars. You can take a great neck from a ‘63 strat and slap it on a ‘59 body with pickups from a ‘54 and it’ll sound terrible. There is something about all those elements working together in tandem that generates the magic. The same is true of a musical group. McCartney and Lennon never produced the quality (and quantity) of hits that they did when they were operating under the synergy of the Beatles. Nice post, Matt.
James
on 27 Nov 09What you say makes it sound like it’s simply a general principle that you can’t cherry pick things. But I say that you can’t necessarily tell whether you can in a particular situation unless you look at it carefully, and sometimes, actually try. It can’t be a general principle. Taking it as a general principle is just an excuse not to try hard.
Michael W.
on 28 Nov 09Context is king (or queen). I have known a methodology to succeed in one part of my organization and utterly fail in the other. It is hard when you have to justify why an approach will not work. You know the complexity (or more aptly put, feel it) and yet revert to a five point bulleted list when explaining it to frame a design.
James
on 30 Nov 09I don’t know why, but for some reason I’ve always had the analogy in my head that I like certain foods, but combining them all would be awful most of the time (and really amazing a few times). I like pizza and ice cream, and I’m pretty sure most combinations would be awful. The things that are great in certain situations are bad in others.
This used to happen to me in a band I had. We’d always try different things in songs, changing the tempo, adding neat little sections, major keys to minor etc. It’s good to experiment and see the various ways a song could go. But we’d get two completely different ideas for a song, and then someone would have the genius idea to combine them into a frankensong, and it’d be awful. It would lose what was great about both, and bastardize the good parts into something bad.
Democracy is very fair, but it’s not a great way to design these kinds of things. Just pick a good idea and keep making it better.
This discussion is closed.