Reading Response #1

to Artful Design • Chapter 1: “Design Is ______”

Huijun Mao

Sep 27, 2026

Music 256A / CS 476a, Stanford University

Reading Response#1: The Break of Dichotomy in Design

From this week’s reading, I’d like to respond to Artful Design Principle 1.13, which states:

Principle 1.13: Design is Human

Human, Ren, 人, the icon of the book, is first introduced in this section. This icon has been under my attention for a while—the cover of this book, the discord channel image, and possibly some corners of CCRMA building—but the thought of it being a Chinese character has simply slipped through my mind. The simplicity embedded in the character has made itself almost unrecognizable to me, which is the most fascinating realization I had. This is Design, D for Design. The character itself is design. Design is 人. Design is Human (Principle 1.13). It’s so simple that sometimes it’s hidden from our sight, just like the pencil bag example in the book. I have always thought it just an interesting pencil bag, but I didn’t realize there are so many thoughts about design in this small ubiquitous dictionary.

There are deeper things about 人 than just its simplicity. The shape of this character reflects some kind of dichotomy, or more precisely the breaking of dichotomy. Just like the many dichotomy that breaks around the concept of design as described in the book: pragmatics vs. aesthetics, means vs. ends, function vs. form, needs, vs. values, etc.

I have a firm belief in the break of dichotomy. Physics advances by breaking dichotomy: electricity and magnetism become one force (electromagnetism), space and time becomes spacetime (special relativity), light is both particle and wave (quantum mechanics). Human society should also advance through breaking dichotomy, such as recognition of the toxic nature of gender binary, the gender non-binary, the transgender, the queerness nature of humans, etc. Therefore, I think it’s most natural that design, the pursuit of the sublime, sits at the breaking point of dichotomy, becoming the end-product when two contrasting ideas merge. I can’t think of a better symbol than 人 to embody these principles. It’s so simple, and yet so profound, because so many insights are embedded in these two strokes. The whole universe is the result of the break of dichotomy.

Hopefully it's not too much of a stretch that I'm making here. As someone who used to be a double major in English and physics, two things are dear to my heart: language and universe. I couldn't let go of a a chance to talk about them in the same context. 

Finally, I would love to respond to the meaning of the symbol itself—human. What makes a human? What makes up human? What makes human human? The answer to all these questions seems to be design. Design is the merging of function and aesthetics, the means and the ends, and we seem to be making a claim that what distinguish humans is our tendency not only to survive in this world, but to survive with beauty and playfulness. It’s our human nature to be curious and playful that gives rise to diverse human cultures, in which design becomes an underlying principle.

Design Etude # 1

Part 1 & 2

Traffic

• Even though traffic jam might seem to happen naturally, I think traffic itself is intentionally designed by the design of traffic lights and road conditions. Traffic lights have a standard on color, but not on how long each color shall stay, especially on the red and green lights. I noticed that sometimes green light tend to be extremely short while red light is insanely long, and that can result in certain places being extremely congested during rush hour, which prompts me into believing that traffic flow is designed and can be designed to do better in many cases.

Gender

• Gender is designed, not by God or nature, but by the society. Gender is a social product and it's the underlying social norms, bias, and values that secretly design our gender. For thousands of years, the design of gender has influenced not only individual behaviors, but the entire human culture and human history. It's a good example of how design is so subtle and fundamental, but not a good design. If I have to say, a very hedious design that reflects the dominant values on patriarchy, heterosexuality, gender-binary, and allosexuality.

Car Key

• The purpose of a car key is to open the car. Modern car keys usually provide two ways to do that: 1) remote control. 2) mechanical key when running out of battery. Car key should also be easy to carry, so it’s made small to fit into pockets, with space to become part of the key chain. Aesthetically, what strikes me as an intricate design is the part of the mechanical key being folded up into the square shape of a car key, so the whole key remains a round/square shape during normal use. Only when we click the button, the top of the mechanical key will pop up and transform the car key into an actual key shape. What’s addictive with this design, however, is the reserved feeling when you pop out and pop in the key. I can’t explain what makes this whole action addictive, but I can play with it for a whole afternoon. I think this appeals to the value of maximizing space use and accessibility.