Excerpts from mail: 1-Oct-100 Rhetoric and design -- core.. by Ken
[log in to unmask]
> Where Dick wonders why the field has not embraced these perspectives, I
> would suggest that the field is actually doing so.
Dick would suggest so, too--as you know. Those arts are already well
established in our field through the themes that various investigators
have introduced. What I am suggesting is that our work may become a
little clearer and more coherent in its various directions if we gave
conscious attention to the new role of those arts in the 20th and now
the 21st centuries. It may also suggest a reason for some of the
pluralism that exists among us. Whatever our philosophic differences of
perspective, we also employ different intellectual arts in the
exploration of our ideas.
Not that design is necessarily behind other fields in this recognition.
For example, in the area known as "organizational learning" we find a
significant development of a new kind of dialectic--yet not well
understood among our colleagues in management and certainly ignored
among humanists who could add insight into the development. As
designers move into this area--as they have in certain very significant
forms of new design practice--designers have adjusted the focus of
design thinking and the conception of products along dialectical lines.
As you know, I have argued that Design is a significant ground for
exploring new intellectual arts in contemporary culture. Where the
field has, to some extent, tended to follow behind intellectual
developments in the 20th century, it could become a source of new ideas
for other fields. But this will require increasingly sophisticated
doctoral study.
Dick
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|