A necessary function of getting older is to consider what will last. As you age, you think about things in terms of significance and legacy. What will I leave behind that will stand the test of time? Or is that concept just a myth of our own construct?
I have always been a huge fan of architecture and design. I have consumed a ton of information about Frank Lloyd Wright and Dieter Rams, both iconic in different realms but timeless in their creations and their impacts on society. I am quite certain neither of them set out to acquire significance or establish a lasting legacy. Rather, they attained those pillars through their amazing body of work
An example of Frank Lloyd Wrights' amazing architecture is his masterpiece at Fallingwater, shown below.
Dieter Rams is best known for his industrial design, specifically the work he did for Braun and the furniture maker Vistoe. Rams did something revolutionary, he put a clear top on a record player, this found its way into many products.
Dieter Rams is famous for having 10 simple principles that ruled his work:
Good design is innovative
Good design makes a product useful
Good design is aesthetic
Good design makes a product understandable
Good design is unobtrusive
Good design is honest
Good design is long-lasting
Good design is thorough down to the last detail
Good design is environmentally-friendly
Good design is as little design as possible
If you were to look at the definition of "architecture" it is commonly referred to as both an Art and a Science. Architecture has over time been a term more broadly applied to many different disciplines because of the nature of the work. The work of the architect is to plan and design in anticipation of the human interaction. If you think about architecture in those terms, then both Wright and Rams fit the definition. Both could certainly be seen as both artist and scientist.
As I sit and contemplate the expectation that an architected outcome will be consumed by a human in most cases, it makes it even more difficult to conceive of things being timeless. Fallingwater was declared in 1938 to be "the best all-time work of American architecture" by the American Institute of Architects. People in 1938 appreciate this work as much as the people of 2025. It caused me to wonder why.
Rams started designing in 1955, and the record player depicted above is actually named Braun Phonosuper SK 4 or "Snow Whites Coffin", and it brought austerity to electronic devices and brought them into their own design space vs. just being thought of as appliances. Rams' ethos can be found in modern day Apple products because of his impact on Apple designer Johnathan Ive. See photo below.
You can see this same influence in the brand new "Nothing" brand that has a few different products including the headphones shown below.
So, why do these these men and many other architects, and a variety of people achieve this level of significance and why do their creations seem to defy the ravages of time.
With time comes changes in taste, new trends, and economic realities. Yet there are some things that are just timeless. As I have considered this topic over many years, I have wondered if it is because of the masterful blend of art and science that allows a human of any make or model to find the architected outcome appealing. You walk into a Frank Lloyd Wright home, and think, I could live there. I see the SK 4 and think that could rest on my shelf. It is art and science, seemingly in perfect harmony.
How do you get that sort of harmonic energy? It is a difficult question to answer. In my wrestling with this line of thinking, I have concluded that the purveyors of these implementations, that achieve timelessness are not constrained by the things that have gone before them and are perfectly happy looking at things in new and opinionless ways. I have come to use the word "opinionless" quite a lot to describe how things should work. Rams had 10 principles to guide his architecture, that was the science aspect of his work, while the art was unconstrained because of the guardrails that he put in place. That allowed him to form and reform his opinions, the subjective, continuously.
The same is true of Wright, the landscape in many places he built were a challenge, but the artist in him sought to make that the feature where others would have only found issue and probably walked away. He did not have the constraints that others did, he sought to develop and reshape opinions as he went guided by his principles.
The way I think about opinionless, is not someone or some discipline that is devoid of principles or guardrails, it is actually the presence of these things that allows for the lack of opinions. Opinions are subjective, whereas principles are fundamental guiding truths. I think of the fundamentals as the science and the subjective as the art. The artist who has just the right fundamentals can create the timeless work.
Almost 25 years ago, I was asked how I would solve a data problem for a customer. I had the opportunity to observe the failure that went before me. The customer needed a data warehouse and the associated reporting. At that time, it was only reporting, no visualizations, no concepts of business intelligence, or fancy titles like "data science". All those things evolved in the years to come. The customer had tried to do this build on their own, they had rigorously followed a framework, pure science, no art and the data was wrong nearly every weekend when the financial system rolled up.
I had witnessed the failure of the science-based approach, I had also worked at some other customer sites where the work taught me other lessons, and I also was reading every book I could find, old fashioned huge books on data and the architecture that goes with it. There were two compelling voices in the data warehousing world, Bill Inmon and Ralph Kimball, and if you walked around at that time and for many years in the future you were asked if you were Inmon or Kimball. Meaning, did you subscribe to one or the other. I happened to agree and disagree with the fundamentals prescribed by both. I was neither.
My approach to data warehousing was principled and opinionless. I was unconstrained, I sought to architect first, rather than implement a framework or a tool. I was young and bold, I brought to the customer a very different way of approaching the problem, it was as much art as it was science. It was true data architecture in my opinion. I operated within a set of principles with the eye of an artist.
In the 25 years since implementation, a lot has changed in the world of data, I have seen many technologies come and go, reporting tools come and go, and a whole host of fancy marketing has been applied. That data warehouse still stands; it has evolved with the customer and met the needs of the business and has been the source for many generations of reporting tools. I have held steadfast in my principles and tried to remain devoid of opinions because one of my principles is to have no opinions.
The world is changing very rapidly right now, especially in the data world, new products, new terminology, and a whole lot of new marketing. So, this is another point in time where architecture will be tested, is the blend of art and science still valid.
I tell you this not because I am under the delusion that I have been able to achieve something that is timeless. It is way too soon to think about that, I bring forward this personal example because I have seen first-hand the power of architecture in a number of disciplines, mine being one of them. Great architecture should be based in fundamentals and be devoid of opinions. The art and science must complement one another. The architecture is first, everything that follows is a derivative of how good that architecture is, the ravages of time will test its endurance. I would much rather be judged on the endurance of the architecture rather than having to be judged by how long the tool lasted. Wright was never judged by the nails he used, nor was Rams judged by the acrylic.