Aesthetic Vs. Ground Reality

A few days ago, the debate of aesthetic vs ground reality raised it voice yet again. What should be the  philosophy of design education, only aesthetics or contextual relevance?
Lets start to examine the former. If we have a design philosophy which believes in only aesthetic what would happen? That brings us to the question, whose aesthetic? Your aesthetic, my aesthetic, aesthetic of the elites or the aesthetic of the masses? Aesthetic is extremely subjective. The age old adage, beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder raises its head here.
If we look at this from the perspective of what is happening in Pakistan, we come to the key question. Are we aware of the aesthetic of the people we are designing for, or are we trying to assert our aesthetic on the people? The key purpose of design is to communicate or appeal to the people it is designed for. If there is a disconnect between the designer and the creator, how then is the purpose of design fulfilled? And what then becomes the meaning or purpose of design?
There is a distinction between the purpose of commercial design and art. That does not mean that the boundaries between the two cannot be blurred. However the important point would be whether they are blurred intentionally or due to a misunderstanding of the distinct nature of the two.
If we look at the greats of literature like Shakespeare, Iqbal, Faiz, Yousufi, what is that quality that made there appeal timeless? It is the universality of there writings, and verses which raised them above the rest. The ability to understand the masses and speak their language, to reach out and engage the masses. Look at the appeal of cinema and the recent success of films like Bol, Khuda kay liyey and Taray Zameen Par, 3 Idiots. They were able to deconstruct difficult topics and place them before the audience in palatable doses. Why then this obsession of Design to be above the understanding of the masses?
This does not mean that Design education does not have to cater to developing an aesthetic sense. Ofcourse it does, it is the basis in which the students have to be grounded. But no Design becomes meaningful if it is not functional, and that will only happen if it is grounded social context. A Design which is not grounded in local social context, will then will be grounded in a social context which is alien to us. And where does the understanding of that context come from? It is superficial and borrowed. If we are to come up with a Design aesthetic which we can call our own, then we have to be in touch with our traditions and social norms, and in touch with the people we are designing for.
In the west Design education is moving towards this integration. Where design works are neccesarily placed in public places making the people they are meant for part of the process of evaluation. The tendency of designers to design in isolation,  is trying to be corrected. This must be a Herculean task as the West has a design philosphy which is quite old. This is a great time for Pakistan to adopt these inclusive practices, since our design education is in the nasecnt stages of evolution. They say it is easier to train somebody in childhood but difficut to make the corrections later. As Dr. Salma Rashid (Phd. and Fullbright Scholar) put it, in childhood it is a seed that grows and develops, in later stages it just becomes a graft.