Design is a prominent phenomenon in the contemporary sociocultural environment, yet it remains insufficiently described and philosophically underexplored. The essence that determines the properties of this activity, as well as the methodology derived from it, has not yet been revealed to the same extent as in traditional forms of creativity or art. The importance of this study is defined by the need for a precise understanding of the boundaries, goals, and essence of design. For this, it is necessary to understand the place of design within the structure of modern society and to describe design as a phenomenon within general philosophical discourse.
Paraphrasing Jean Baudrillard, there exists around us a kind of fantastic uncertainty of a postmodern nature, grounded in the material dimension in the multiplication of wealth, services, and material goods, constituting a profound mutation in the ecology of the human species. The triumph of object-forms in what is likely a declining capitalist society coincides with a crisis of the humanities, to which responses include the search for “theories of everything,” universal methodologies, and a general unity and clarity of knowledge. This article is built upon the problem of the relationship between the material and the immaterial as expressed in project activity within contemporary society.
Modern capitalist society produces a consumer environment, described by Baudrillard as “the consumer society.” Design is a child of the consumer society. The spiritual dimension and quality of this phenomenon can be described by the concept of a “religion of comfort.” Design displaces image and beauty, replacing them with associativity and function, which are necessary within a consumer society. It is an art in which faith in progress has triumphed—a naïve belief in the infallibility of scientific truth.
In the development of its expressive means, design depends more on industrial production and scientific progress than on the creative thought of the designer. It is fundamentally a synthetic rather than analytical (scientific) activity. This reflects not only its internal mechanisms but also its historically formed expressive tools. In essence, design thinking is built upon a generalization of principles from traditional arts—architecture, sculpture, painting, and decorative arts—their formalization and subordination to highly abstract compositional principles, where rhythm, symmetry, and measure play a leading role.
At the beginning of the 20th century, painting, sculpture, and architecture were synthesized into a unified abstract thinking, crystallizing into the fundamental principles of design, where function, ergonomics, and aesthetics came to the forefront. At the moment when function and beauty were fully united—with beauty subordinated to function—a dangerous premise emerged: the dominance of the material over the spiritual. The erasure of distinctions tends to favor the simplest function. Since the spiritual is more complex, it is not the spiritual that governs the material, but the material that subjugates the spiritual due to a failure to comprehend its subtler nature.
On the basis of material values, a universal methodology for spatial solutions emerged. However, universalism itself is faceless—it lacks tension, conflict, and drama. It is pure function and therefore applicable anywhere for any purpose. While synthesis itself is not new, the synthesis in design differs from that in architecture. In design, rather than synthesis in the traditional sense, there is a subordination to functional methodology within the paradigm of societal development.
Design activity is often described as case-dependent, which allows it to be metaphorically compared to water taking the shape of its container. The conditions of consumer society are characterized by a desire to stimulate demand by all possible means. As noted by Shimko: “Design possesses its own means of influencing the spiritual world of a person—through the creation of a comprehensive system of comfortable living conditions…”
Comfort is driven by demand, which may be either imposed or real, yet it implies needs beyond mere convenience. The functional nature of the individual in consumer society leads to the construction of identity through signs and distinctions. However, within a system of signs, genuine individuality disappears. Design thus produces symbolic distinctions that simulate rather than embody real differences.
Design is inherently transient; it is a changing environment where signs are constantly replaced. Consumption itself becomes a system of meanings, similar to language. Environmental design shapes the space in which social distinctions function. Engagement with design becomes a simulacrum of satisfying spiritual needs—an “illusion of happiness.”
Unlike traditional art, design cannot penetrate the essence of phenomena—it produces signs instead. Objects and environments become markers of social status. The consumer is compelled to enjoy, to be happy, to participate in a system of endless consumption and sign exchange.
Design operates as part of marketing strategy, contributing to added value, while social significance is constructed through advertising and suggestion. Suggestion itself takes on a quasi-sacral character, offering pleasure and meaning.
Consumer freedom is largely illusory. As critics such as John Kenneth Galbraith have argued, the sovereignty of the consumer is a myth sustaining the industrial system. The individual is left “free” within a contaminated environment of manipulation and imposed choices.
Design contributes to the fetishization not only of objects but of the human body itself. Everything becomes spectacle—organized into images, signs, and consumable models. As Guy Debord wrote: “All that was once directly lived has become mere representation.”
Thus, the sociocultural environment shaped by design resembles a network in which elements lose individuality and become interchangeable nodes. Hierarchies become illusory, diversity becomes simulated, and both chaos and order become functionally equivalent within a homogenized system.
Design does not engage with essence but reproduces signs. Attempts to introduce deeper meaning are often neutralized by the system itself. This leads to fragmentation, alienation, and a fear of confronting true essence.
Design thinking is fundamentally project-oriented, but within a sign-based system, it operates in a closed loop. Goals exist as predefined signs, eliminating true development or discovery. Unlike real processes (e.g., growing crops), design avoids contingency and unpredictability.
At the same time, design is a powerful tool—capable of shaping perception and behavior through multisensory environments. Retail spaces, for example, are carefully constructed to manipulate perception, emotion, and desire.
The functions of design in contemporary society may be summarized as follows:
- Sign function – assigns social status and mediates communication.
- Manipulative function – creates illusions and directs behavior.
- Aesthetic function – often leads to cultural degradation by replacing beauty with superficial pleasantness.
- Technological function – promotes new technologies and reinforces belief in scientific progress.
- Anti-religious function – indirectly opposes spiritual values through the dominance of the previous functions.
In its essence, design can be described as a synthetic, project-based, and conformist activity that influences human consciousness.
The issue of conformism is particularly important. The adaptability of designers to external conditions often results in a loss of individuality and critical thinking. Designers become functionaries within the service economy, their identity reduced to predefined roles.
However, design also contains the potential to overcome the crisis of postmodern culture. The key question remains: is design limited to pragmatic functions, or can it express deeper metaphysical meanings?
While design is capable of expressing a wide range of meanings, its language must be consciously directed. The greatest works of design are based on hierarchy and meaningful structure. True design should not merely replicate forms but serve as a means of knowledge.
Finally, overcoming the limitations of purely functional design requires reintroducing the category of quality—not as a market metric, but as an ethical one. The ultimate criterion of design, within a truly humanistic culture, should be moral value.