**Designer - who is he**

It would be a kind of curiosity, if a person were not interested in an activity whose outcome significantly influences the course of their life (…)1 Unfortunately, I am convinced that the aforementioned curiosity is not at all an incidental feature of many of us. We generally seem to know what we are doing, even why we do it, but this is an appearance. Just ask, bluntly, – what is your work and what is its purpose? In my doctoral dissertation, I tried to answer the question of what design is and who a designer is. I thought the answers would be simple. They weren't. I arrived at some interesting definitions. I will briefly present some, along with a few of my own observations.
Because the act of creation requires original creative thought, establishing any regulations for it is actually contrary to its very nature (…)2 The author of this surprising thesis was Bruce Archer, a British engineer and professor at the Royal College of Art, who promoted design research and contributed to the establishment of design as an academic discipline.
So what is design? (…) for now, we can venture to say that it is a field of creativity concerned with the relationship between a specific cause and effect. Moreover, it is a rational activity that is intended to result in a specific effect. This effect is planned by the designer during the design process (...)3
Just from these two quotes, we can see the wide range of views on the creative nature of the design process. Some form of action is described, but there is no place for the human being. The human being as a designer, if not the agent, then at least an essential element of the design process, but also as a human being, the addressee and recipient of design actions. In these studies, the human being is not a being, but merely an element of a scheme or machine used to perform a specific sequence of actions, ultimately leading to a predicted change in the state of affairs. Moreover, the concept of designer, and especially the recipient or user, does not appear in them at all. It is difficult for me to agree that the human world, both real and spiritual, can be reduced to essentially simple, mechanistic dependencies. Be silent, foolish nature, and learn that man infinitely surpasses man (…)4
This is a good place for a brief reflection on the humanity of the design profession. While it is determined by the fact that we are human, we must seek within ourselves something that is the essence of humanity and embody it in our actions, or even make it the goal of these actions. This something is ideas. Personally, I believe that a designer, as a creator of material objects, by nature brings them to life with his ideas. He has at least a chance of doing so if he lives them himself. Because if not… We depend largely on the idea of man that we carry within us: our concept of man is degraded, it degrades us (…)5
It is impossible to function in such a delicate matter, allowing someone to reduce me and my actions to naturalistic needs or even reflexes. Even if rationalism, optimization, usability, etc. were behind it, we must make the effort to understand ourselves, not as individuals, but as representatives of a species capable of transcending our reality, only there to experience humanity. I believe that such reflection can be considered one of the goals of a designer's work: to expand not only our cognitive abilities and knowledge, but also our capacity for ethical judgment. Then, and only then, will the products of our creative work fully testify to our humanity. They will become objects rooted in a system of values and related to values.

I admire those who believe that all actions, the entire design process, will one day be captured in a flawless algorithm guaranteeing the achievement of ideal designs. However, I am deeply convinced that design success is determined by the most crucial element in the entire chain of design events – the designer – homo creator. The method can be helpful, even essential, but it does not in itself determine success.

The problem is undoubtedly very complex. It's impossible not to notice the multitude of industrial design concepts. Homo creator. Is it possible to describe a human being, the full complexity of their psyche? To describe the complex mechanism of associations and motivations, of appropriate or irrational reactions? To conduct a complete vivisection, completely, in terms of rational assessments? I'm afraid not. Although there are sciences that make such efforts, have a great legacy, and even claim to know almost everything. I believe that in reality, it is an arduous investigation that, like the asymptotic curve in mathematics, will be a constant approach to a goal, without the possibility of definitive achievement. It is impossible to completely separate the designer from the design process, as a unique, incredibly complex intellectual process. I would like to say that in this respect, I am somewhat convinced by the concept sometimes referred to as a black box. It would be a set of data that cannot be fully understood. The concept of the "black box" described by Stanisław Lem in his Summa Technologiae appears attractive, also from a literary perspective. Unfortunately, there is no space to quote it here.

In Pawłowski's Dictionary of Terminology, under the entry "industrial designer" we read: in the field of design – a specialist who, by virtue of his education, determines, devises, and defines the exemplary functional properties and form of products and their systems, as well as functional processes implemented by industrial means (forms) of production – in a manner consistent with the needs, capabilities, and interests of society (…)6 In this quote, Pawłowski is speaking not so much about the designer, but about the domain of the designer's activities. It is left to our imagination what qualities they must possess to be able to "devise" and "define." We learn a bit more elsewhere in Initiation. The qualities of art – talent, passion, a versatile, free imagination, the ability to comprehensively analyze phenomena – deepened by knowledge of the humanities, familiarity with industrial processes, and trends in technological development – these are the qualities that characterize the designer of industrial forms (…)7
But where is the definition? To a certain extent and in a sense, in two texts by Andrzej Pawłowski – "The Basic Education Program for Designers in Higher Artistic Education" and "Education as Designing Design" – both in "Initiations."

However, even here we won't find an in-situ definition of what a designer is. Only through analysis can we attempt to create such a definition. This will be our interpretation of the text, however, not the author's own.

My favorite text on this topic, which, while not exhaustively answering the questions posed, besides its wonderful charm contains much wisdom, is a fragment of the first chapter of Vitruvius's "Ten Books on Architecture" (a treatise on architecture written between 20 and 10 BC). Unfortunately, it is also too extensive to quote, but I heartily recommend it to inquisitive readers. If one were to attempt a summary of the aforementioned quote, it might sound like this: "The profession of a designer is an interdisciplinary profession. Therefore, one must possess extensive knowledge, but also be aware that one will never be an expert in non-native fields." He speaks of the need to reconcile theoretical knowledge with the ability to apply it practically. The order of importance is listed – gathering knowledge about the problem, considering it, developing the concept of the work, and only then being able to sketch it on paper. Indeed, the need to support one's actions with scientific reasoning is even mentioned. Indeed, Vitruvius emphasizes the element of education and the knowledge possessed by the designer. But it's not only the qualities of the mind that are considered valuable and essential. He mentions qualities of the spirit and the capacity for ethical judgment. The entire argument above is not in opposition to the concept of the "black box." The complexity and phenomenon of the creator, mentioned at the beginning, are manifest here. It comprises "discovered" areas, such as knowledge, and inaccessible ones, "hidden" somewhere in the shadows. I am convinced that what is most essential is "hidden." I do not intend to open a debate here on whether design is art or not, but:
A variable current flows through this work of art, the generator of which is the author. The same is true with literature. The author's breath, the fingerprints, the traces of his illnesses, moods, despair—all this is contained in twenty-eight or thirty-two characters of the alphabet. In the syntax of sentences and the choice of words, in the rhythm of dispositions and the almost intangible pulse of premonitions of that mystery that has haunted us since we came down from the trees (…)8
The designer is the quintessence of design, but also of humanity. It's a great mystery that I wanted to uncover, even if only in a small part, and although I asked a number of questions about it, I don't think I succeeded (1996). I tried!

References
1 Wojciech Gasparski, Design, Conceptual Preparation of Actions, PWN 1978, p. 28.
2 Bruce L. Archer, Systematic Method of Industrial Design, I WP, Warsaw 1968, p. 47.
3 Andrzej Pawłowski, Initiations, Faculty of Industrial Design, Academy of Fine Arts in Krakow, Krakow 2001, p. 56.
4 Blaise Pascal, Thoughts, Zielona Sowa Publishing House, Krakow 2003, p. 111.
5 Józef Czapski, Reading, Znak Publishing House, Krakow 2015, p. 289.
6 Andrzej Pawłowski, Initiations, Faculty of Industrial Design, Academy of Fine Arts in Krakow, Jan Matejko
in Krakow, Krakow 2001, p. 159
7 ibid., p. 31
8 Tadeusz Konwicki, Pamphlet on Oneself, Independent Publishing House, Warsaw 1995, pp. 88-89.