My first traumatic, yet very useful experience as designer was when I had one of my first reviews in Architecture school. Back then I was still learning English and my vocabulary was not the most sophisticated so the expression “nice” slipped off my lips, to which my Professor, with the typical callous attitude that all the reviewers had – to make us stronger or quit – told me ”I do not care about what you like or not”. That was one of those moments that marked my future as designer.
The distinction between “I like” and “it is” represents far more than a simple linguistic difference: it defines the boundary between subjective judgment and objective evaluation in design. To say “I like” is to express a personal preference, tied to individual taste, sensitivity, and experience. It is a valid but unstable statement, one that describes the relationship between the observer and the object, rather than the object itself. For this reason, it cannot serve as a solid foundation for critical evaluation.
On the contrary, describing a project for what it is implies an objective analysis, one that focuses on structure, internal coherence, and the relationship between idea and form. Design is therefore evaluated based on its ability to realize a conceptual premise, independently of personal taste. The object becomes an analyzable system, and its value emerges from its integrity rather than from its capacity to please.
Within this objective dimension, design approaches true art. A project guided by an idea, even if imperfect, reveals its value through the dialogue between intention and result. Subjective imperfections are not necessarily flaws, but traces of the process — evidence of the challenges involved in translating a concept into form. This tension strengthens the project, making it more profound and authentic.
Post-rationalized design, on the other hand, often relies on “I like” and on narratives constructed after the fact to justify forms that lack an original idea. These stories function as persuasive tools, but they do not withstand objective analysis. Stripped of rhetoric, the project reveals its lack of coherence and foundation, remaining an exercise in appearance rather than substance.
In conclusion, the true value of design does not lie in its ability to be appreciated subjectively, but in its capacity to be defined and understood objectively. The shift from “I like” to “it is” distinguishes a simple object from a work endowed with real cultural and intellectual value.
