ABSTRACT
This paper examines compositional principles in industrial design through a comparative analysis of traditional and digital design practices. The
focus is placed on the fundamental structural elements of composition, balance, contrast, rhythm, proportion, and visual hierarchy, and their
role in shaping the form, functionality, ergonomics, and visual identity of industrial products (Arnheim, 1974; Lupton & Phillips, 2015).
The research is based on a qualitative analysis of representative examples from Macedonian industrial design, including products from the 1970s
as well as contemporary solutions in furniture and lighting design. Through a comparative approach, the study analyzes the transformation
of compositional strategies from static, materially determined systems to dynamic, adaptive, and digitally generated forms (Forty,
1986; Kolarevic, 2003). The results indicate that, despite the conceptual stability of compositional principles, their operational application has significantly evolved under
the influence of digital technologies and new design methodologies. The study further suggests that excessive reliance on digital tools may lead to
formal homogenization, while traditional approaches remain constrained by material and production conditions (Burry, 2011; Sennett, 2008).
The paper concludes that a hybrid model, integrating material intelligence with computationally generated processes, represents the most
balanced and relevant approach for contemporary industrial design practice (Oxman, 2010; Norman, 2013).
REFERENCES
Arnheim, R. (1974). Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye. University of California
Press.
Burry, M. (2011). Scripting cultures: Architectural design and programming. Wiley.
Bürdek, B. E. (2005). Design: History, theory and practice of product design. Birkhäuser.
Carpo, M. (2011). The alphabet and the algorithm. MIT Press.Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design:
Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Berg.
Despot, K., Sandeva, V., & Namiceva-Todorovska, E. (2023). The two pages of the beauty in
the design. 32 International Conference Management and Quality. https://eprints.ugd.edu.
mk/33741/
Forty, A. (1986). Objects of desire: Design and society since 1750. Thames & Hudson.
Frampton, K. (1992). Modern architecture: A critical history. Thames & Hudson.
Heskett, J. (1980). Industrial design. Thames & Hudson.
Kolarevic, B. (2003). Architecture in the digital age: Design and manufacturing. Spon Press.
Lupton, E., & Phillips, J. C. (2015). Graphic design: The new basics. Princeton Architectural Press.
Manzini, E. (2015). Design, when everybody designs: An introduction to design for social innovation.
MIT Press.
Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things (Revised and expanded edition). Basic Books.
Oxman, R. (2010). Digital architecture as a challenge for design pedagogy: Theory, knowledge,
models and medium. Design Studies, 31(2), 99–120.
Papanek, V. (1985). Design for the real world: Human ecology and social change. Thames & Hudson.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage Publications.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
Sennett, R. (2008). The craftsman. Yale University Press.
Ulrich, K. T., & Eppinger, S. D. (2016). Product design and development (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Keywords
