The speculation and observation on the norms of culture seems to be a delightful exercise in the thought of design. How much culture is imposed and how much of it is a mean or a meaning? To distinguish between the 2 means to delve further into the territory of “insights”. What can’t culture be? It can’t be an entertainment, consumption or purpose of profit. It can be their causative agent though. Culture then must drive higher purpose and can be a signaling activity of community. Design materialises the values of culture. It is the signal of the value. The placement and manifestation of these values through activities, objects and surroundings. It is quite an interesting observation to how design for consumption and entertainment takes forms of rhetoricism and persuasion.

However for a moment let us examine a completely different purpose of design other than consumption and entertainment. The design for remorse and bereavement. It exists in clothing in so many cultures. All the substantial and empirical aspects such as colour, contrast, form, exude the symbols and signals of that culture’s interpretation of loss and longing. This makes things very interesting. Design provides meaning and demonstrates the cultural symbol of a human condition – namely loss. So one can say in the above situation, design addresses concealment of the naked body, temperature regulation, vanity and a message of loss layered and woven together. Let’s say we can observe our current society’s great emphasis on entertainment, achievement consumption and productivity. Design would subconsciously pick up the symbols of these values and find ways to bring them forth. Contrast, movement and reflection can all arrest attention and dazzle us showing us that underlying our design act are layers of pre – existing social structures which we subconsciously comply with.

Design follows the society, it exists within.