We have been taken to task by several correspondents for our Editorial in Number 6, Volume I. It appears that many folk are not happy unless they, or someone else, can deduce rules of design. This is an occupation that has been happily followed from Aristotle to the present day. Meantime the artist and designer gets along with a happy indifference to the law-givers.

Let us leave out of this discussion those who develop theories of æsthetics. Mostly their cogitations have died with them—the artists works remain. Let us confine our attention to the rules of design. There have been many attempts to define them and here are three that are generally accepted:

1)	The design must have unity.
2)	The object must fulfil its purpose.
3)	The Material must be used according to its nature.

Everyone will accept the first, but when you see an object you feel that it has or has not unity. If you cannot feel that it has or has not unity, knowing the rule will not help.

If we accept rule two, we must exclude as not good design most Chinese bronzes. If we accept rule three, we must exclude as not good design nearly all Baroque architecture and Bernini sculpture.

Perhaps we had better stick to the vague rules:

The design must be rhythmical. We challenge anyone to convey in words an understanding of rhythm in design to someone who does not know what it is. Never mind. Suppose we accept that, or all or any of the rules, then we have the right to ask, does a knowledge of them (a) enable anyone to design well or (b) enable anyone to judge whether an object is well designed or not? Our answer is emphatically no.

Why do we object so strongly to rules of design? There is a good reason. Every drawing teacher will tell you that the first demand of every student is: “Give me a formula!” There is no formula for good drawing except practice. Formulas and rules are the refuge of the lazy man who does not want to use his hands and eyes and is afraid of being found out. How nice if all our judgments could be effected by trotting half-a-dozen rules out of our pocket!

To conclude, we will negate our argument by formulating two rules, both infallible: to judge music, learn to listen: to judge design, learn to see. If any reader has any better rules of design, we should be glad to publish them.

Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor and contributions should be addressed to The Editor, Design Review, P.O. Box 1628, Wellington, C.I., accompanied by a stamped addressed envelope. If written under a pen-name, the writer must enclose his name and address.

Contributions

The Editor is always glad to consider any contributions. Where possible, they should be accompanied by photographs of the illustrations suggested. Original works of art should not be sent unless requested.

For the purposes of reproduction, glossy photographs are preferable, and contributors are reminded that the appearance of good objects can be easily ruined by bad photography.

Subscriptions

A Subscription is the best way to make sure of your copy of Design Review. The subscription is six shillings, post free, for six numbers and should be sent to Design Review, P.O. Box 1628, Wellington, C.I.

Advertising

Advertisers are reminded that the readers of Design Review arè people interested in well made and well designed products of all kinds. Rates for display advertising may be obtained on application to the Advertising Manager, Design Review, P.O. Box 1628, Wellington, C.I.