The Controversy in the Use of Metaphors in Design

In a lecture held at NMMU (Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University) recently, a topic was raised about the concerns related to the use of metaphors in design. The approach to a specific problem, related to the site, context, climate and the brief is often an approached with a metaphorical under-lying meaning.

The concerns raised in the lecture were whether or not this specific approach to design was at all relevant and appropriate. The use of a metaphor to explain a concept often does not answer the questions which the problem asks. Architects and designers have to respond to many problems on site, on a micro and a macro scale of site conditions. In addition to the site conditions, the brief has to be responded to, as well as the context, the culture of the area and many other problems that have to be identified.

In the lecture, the conclusion was that the use of metaphors in design can be used, but only where relevant and appropriate.

The topic has raised additional concerns however. There are architects in South Africa who spend the majority of their lectures on a specific design speaking about the metaphor and not the problem or the response. "There are architects who spend hours talking about a leaf," was a statement made by the guest speaker, giving an example of the irrelevant use of metaphors. The design needs to respond to the opportunities and constraints at many levels, and appropriateness is important in these responses.

Architecture can be very opinionated and what can be a very well resolved design, can also raise additional concerns to many speculative individuals. The argument is often what decides whether or not a design is appropriate.

The approach to design needs to be appropriate, and the designer or architect needs to identify the issues and respond to them in this manner. Should the metaphor be a valid argument and have the level of appropriateness required, that metaphor may be a good response.