The other day someone pointed out that the root of where the the word ‘art’ originates from can be found in the Indo-European word for ‘joint’. 

Always one who can’t resist ducking down a rabbit-hole to find out more when there’s proper work to be done, I did, and discovered that’s not strictly true - so pedant-alert - the root of ‘art’ from ‘rt’ isn’t ‘join’ or put together.

But that’s ok, because ‘rt’ is apparently an Indo-Aryan noun (or adjective. Whichever) for “the whole dynamic process by which the whole cosmos continues to be created’’, so that’s even better. Next time someone smirks at you job of fart-arting around, you can smuggly reply that without you, nothing would get done and everything would grind to a stop.

Which sort of made the start of this little ramble - about how most of all I do, much of the time, is trying to join stuff up - somewhat dis-jointed on finding the art as the root of creation bit. Not only that, but my jointing is usually much less artistic and more like a kind of syncretism syndrome. A pale by comparison to ‘rt’ activity where most of the day is spent attempting to hold together fractious coalitions. Teams who are apparently on the same side, but constantly fighting for possession of the ball among themselves, to lob in a football metaphor. 

Trying to coalesce things even to within touching-distance is hard in these work spaces (see also ‘camels’ and ‘committees’) let alone actually making joins that stick. Most of the time the joins are about as illusionary - and as fragile - as the work-life (or commercial-art) balance. Great on flip charts. Hopeless when they meet the real world.

I’ve supposed that the simple business of joining things together so they stick and stay stuck is actually the thing that design alone can do. Perhaps nothing as big as helping that whole cosmos (or conglomerate) to continue to be created, let alone creative, requires plenty of ‘rt’. 

But what never ceases to amaze is how administration and procedure often appear do a better job of tying everyone together in a business. Do people really enjoy the entanglement? I suppose the security of being attached to something is more pull that the attempted push of joining. 

Perhaps the bureaucrat that lurks in all of us might find a good deal more comfort in conforming (as any shuffle of bureaucrats would concur) than constantly looking to reforming?

Some rather ungenerous people I once worked with remarked to me that the English gave India bureaucracy, which India turned into an art. Unsurprising really, given the cultures of those varied parts were running with art as written idea since at least 1500BCE. And their gift of art to us? We turned it into a commerce. Make of that what you will.

The problem sometimes is a subtlety of designers is exactly what’s lacking. Maybe a bit of bureaucracy’s really what’s needed to joint things together. Especially if it’s the artful type.