John Pavlus for Fast Company Design Blog:

Calling a director a “designer” is almost a tautology: indeed, anyone making creative choices about what to leave in or leave out, in any medium, is designing. But Fincher’s coolly intelligent eye, laserlike attention to detail, and (in his best work) apparent fascination with storytelling as problem-solving, all set him apart from other filmmakers as a true designer-auteur. He makes films like Jony Ive makes iMacs: They just work — with style to burn.

I’m on record of being an adoring fan of Fincher’s latest, The Social Network, and that’s just an addition to a string of smart filmmaking. I’ve always liked the director/designer analogy, but Mr. Pavlus makes a strong case that no director deserves the analogy more than Fincher.

Fincher’s best films of the last ten years — The Social Network, Zodiac, Panic Room — all function this way, like exquisitely designed machines. That’s not to say they don’t contain compelling characters, too; it’s just that they often seem oppressed by the nanoscopically precise tolerances of the worlds that Fincher builds around them. Which is, of course, the point.

Fincher approaches filmmaking with the eye of a designer—working through constraints, solving problems, and taking a less-is-more philosophy. So the question is, why didn’t he win an Oscar?

Hollywood has made its peace with honoring geeky director-engineers like James Cameron, but somehow, director-designers like Fincher still don’t quite compute during awards season. But maybe Fincher doesn’t care about winning Oscars; maybe at the end of the day, he just cares more about what legendary designer Paul Rand prized above all: just being good.

Aen Tan writes an interesting piece on the seven principles of the wabi sabi aesthetics:

Japan in its unique cultural history had developed a rather different approach to life and had defined design in terms that are more spiritual than scientific. In a culture where harmony is preferred over logic and where habitat is respected as housing deities known as kami, instead of being exploited for excessive human consumption, humans in Japan over centuries have based their life values in nature. The aesthetic philosophies of the Japanese are thus a prod­uct of harmony with nature. Reconcile this with western science and we recognize in evolutionary terms how nature-centric values can be so attractive to us humans and how it connects to primitive parts of our brains more connected to rivers and mountains than the subway and skyscrapers.

I admittedly knew nothing about “wabi sabi aesthetics” or Japanese Zen aesthetics but found these principles extremely fascinating and enlightening. These principles serve as a good foundation for any design project.

Liz Danzico, on designing experiences that amplify happiness:

Findings show that spending money on experiences over material goods leads to longer-term satisfaction, and spending money on leisure and services typically strengthens social bonds, which in turn helps amplify happiness. In 2008, for instance, at the downturn of the economy, Wal-Mart noticed a stay-cation trend and started grouping items in its stores to transform any space into a “vacation.” No longer just selling objects like grills and tents, it was selling entire experiences — barbecue foods, inflatable pools, and outdoor furniture at a reduced price. By focusing on the larger story, it was able to focus its design and make a larger impact by creating an entire vacation rather than providing just the pieces. Assuming a consumer’s goal (vacation) was aligned with the outcome (purchase), his or her ultimate happiness had more of an opportunity to flourish.

Experiences — those that we have the potential to create opportunities for — can amplify happiness. While we can’t predict or control what people will or won’t do, we can create potential.

Related: Frank Chimero on letting happiness emerge:

[M]aybe happiness is a bit paradoxical like that: if you stop pursuing it, there are fewer places for it to hide. You just have to be listening when it says “I’m over here!”

Alice Rawsthorn for The New York Times:

“As a designer, I was told for years that people didn’t want to know about the design process, all they wanted was the end-result, but there’s been a change.” Mr. Béhar said. “People are so sophisticated about what they want and what they need, that they’re no longer happy to be passive recipients of designers’ work. They want to customize the things they buy based on individual needs, cultural differences, style and personality.”

This sounds a lot like designing platforms and initiating conversations on the web.

My current favorite designer/writer/illustrator has just launched a refresh of his website. Go read through everything he writes. I love the way Frank thinks.

Paul Graham on matters of ‘taste’ and ‘beauty:’

For those of us who design things, these are not just theoretical questions. If there is such a thing as beauty, we need to be able to recognize it. We need good taste to make good things. Instead of treating beauty as an airy abstraction, to be either blathered about or avoided depending on how one feels about airy abstractions, let’s try considering it as a practical question: how do you make good stuff?

There is so much in this article I’m trying to wrap my head around, I don’t even know what to add. This should be required reading for people who make things. The list of what makes good design is just fantastic.