1 While Sagmeister's statements were personal and subjective, they were highly testament to the pursuit of happiness that humankind faced.

             In the world of graphic design (and any creative medium in general), it is difficult to lend credibility to any claim of objectiveness. For each argument unsupported by research, there are a thousand biases, and infinitely more possibilities for refutation. How, then, is it possible to claim happiness as a science? For centuries, happiness was often neglected in the field of psychology and dismissed as a folk phenomenon, unworthy of academic study. In the 1960's, cultural psychologist Paul Ekman began studying the science of happiness, which would later be known as hedonics. Most notable among his studies was the distinction between short-term (which manifested in emotions like joy and bliss) and long-term happiness (which evoked emotions of satisfaction or contentment). Ekman observed that these emotions were experienced on a global scale, and often found that they had profound cultural implications (note the Italian gioa ("joy ") versus felicit ("happiness ") as a distinct difference in meaning, while the German Gluck ("happy/lucky ") eventually became the English "Good luck, signifying a lexical and meaningful relationship between happiness and the expectation for prosperous results).2.

             Using this research as a basis, it is then possible by artists and designers (such as Stefan Sagmeister) to "visualize happiness " in an objective manner. In fact, it is ultimately the goal of the designer to depict happiness to a user, whether it is through the elegance of a font, the message of a billboard, or the feel of the newest piece of technology. In a 2012 New York Times article, Sagmeister stated, "The question I wanted to answer was, could I train my mind to be happy, the same way one trains one's body? "3 Along with research from author and behavioral scientist Daniel Nettle and American psychologist Dr.