I agree, the success or failure of UI design depends on conforming to the implicit assumptions and culture of its intended audience, and, being task-based, having a thorough understanding of its intended use-case: how easily the target audience achieves the desired goal.
While the 'greatness' of aesthetics are debatable, I'd argue for design it's not. Aesthetics are based on taste, culture, technology, background and approach, whereas design is about solving problems. Everything that goes into a design must have a purpose – aesthetic choices are important, but they should be in alignment with the brief.
There are rules and concepts which one must understand and know when to follow or subvert: form, size, colour, contrast, proximity, structure, action, relationship etc. This visual grammar forms the building blocks of design. Scary territory like postmodernism or constructivism or whatever just use these concepts in different combinations to express their ideas.
What about cultures that don't have problems to define, or where 'problems' are defined in such a way that solving one directly causes one to be created?
> Scary territory like postmodernism or constructivism or whatever just use these concepts in different combinations to express their ideas.
Not true. You begin with a foundation in order to assume that concepts like form, size, color, contrast, proximity, structure, action, relationship actually exist. You have your foundation, and you see post modernism through it. Post modernism is then an combinatorial expression of what already exists, to you.
What if nothing exists to begin with, or it is undefinable, or it is only definable in relation to a definable undefinable? The transience and dependency of terms on one another is what I am trying to express.
> There are rules and concepts which one must understand and know when to follow or subvert
One must not do anything. The most absurd, ridiculous, and controversial creations are what shape wave after wave of art, to then be analyzed and sifted through, to identify and separate something that was not separate to begin with, to define good and bad. But the definitions of good and bad are dependent on the context. The terms exist in relation to that which has already been defined.
The rule of design is not "follow the rules or do the opposite". There is more to do than use the rules to measure the value and define the potential of design, if you choose to do those things at all.
However, in general, in broad culture today and historically, I would say you are correct. But things change subtly, until everything is completely different.
Post-modernism is meta-aesthetics. It's not a specific visual style, it's a social game played by well-educated people to signal their learning to other well-educated people.
The standard example would be an architect building the usual everything-is-a-rectangle modernist house and 'ironically' putting a classical portico two feet in front of it.
That kind of thing was done to death in the 80s and 90s, and it's not so much of a thing any more.
>The most absurd, ridiculous, and controversial creations are what shape wave after wave of art
You could probably argue that the entire web is one massive work of art.
It's certainly been absurd, ridiculous and controversial enough to qualify. (I mean that as a fan, not a critic.)
While the 'greatness' of aesthetics are debatable, I'd argue for design it's not. Aesthetics are based on taste, culture, technology, background and approach, whereas design is about solving problems. Everything that goes into a design must have a purpose – aesthetic choices are important, but they should be in alignment with the brief.
There are rules and concepts which one must understand and know when to follow or subvert: form, size, colour, contrast, proximity, structure, action, relationship etc. This visual grammar forms the building blocks of design. Scary territory like postmodernism or constructivism or whatever just use these concepts in different combinations to express their ideas.