'Why bother with the superficial?', some may ask. Everybody knows that we mustn't judge a book by its cover, but the thing is that we do judge books by their covers - thus the occasion for the popular proverb.
I have read somewhere, the opinion of a design expert, that the convention of form follows function is rapidly being undermined as we move from the information age into the visual age - as evidenced by the fact that engineers are now being forced to seek ways to accommodate conceptual design instead of the other way around.
That we are becoming more dependent upon sight is an interesting and disturbing change. Still this does not change the fact that form follows function. Engineering is a part of the design phase in product development too. Whether the aesthetic or interpretive designer gets to have a say before the engineer does is irrelevant. The product request is up the chain from either one and therefore product function is dictated upstream from both.
Taking the book cover example further we identify that the cover appears to be more glorious outwardly than the pages it contains. But the occasion for the cover is 'the content stupid' - literally - 'about the content without speaking'..
So people who rely wholly on book covers, what they see, and aesthetic design for knowledge can probably say accurately of themselves:
"I might be stupid but I'm not blind."
The fact that the saying about book covers rings so true as to be applied to almost anything is a testimony to the existence of a load of generally poor design. It would follow that in a world of otherwise talented designers, poor design must be attributed to the acceptance of inaccurate industry postulate. Sure, not all design fits this mold, but after all, you still can't judge a book by its cover.
Good design should convey, using superficial means, something about what lies beneath the surface. It should be both honest and transparent. As such, design is to be the servant of function. After all, who would ever say (most natural scientists excepted) that purpose is superceded by the superficial?
Design should tell the truth.
So is this the significance we find in our work - to tell a story true to the intention of a final product? It might be the logic we use to do what we do, but still isn't ultimately significant for any of these reasons. Why? Can the superficial ever truly be significant of its own merit? Common sense says no, importance is more than skin deep. If we strip away everything that can be removed and leave only the unchangeable and eternal we will only then discover what is not superficial.
Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.
We know from the Scriptures that all the things of this world are essentially superficial.
In 2 Peter 3:7 we read, "But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."
In Hebrews 12:25-29 we read "See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven: Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: For our God is a consuming fire."
Even if we could twist the purpose of aesthetic design into some greater thing we arrive at the same conclusion.
What you see is not what you get.
We bother with the superficial everyday, for the Christian as a test of faithfulness, for the rest in an endeavor to satisfy the insatiable.