I was reading Vygotsky the other night and found an interesting point he
made, he states that there is no correspondence between language and
thought...that is that the components of language are socially/culturally
derived and the mental components of human minds have to be trained through
very explicit processes to operate effectively in this way according to
some pre-set convention. Part of this institution as stated well by Bruyn
and others is reward for acceptable practice...the system that discourse
analysis thrives upon.
The idea of correspondence is a valuable one for design because visual
perception demands correspondence. We have to see whats there and we all
have to see the same to be effective...also the nature of the visual cortex
strongly suggests that there is a necessary correspondence between the
mental/cognitive/neural components of perception and 'what we see'. This is
a mutually adaptive system or a natural system if you like...this has led
people like Gell to state that the art object is an external visual
cognition.
in design terms then it is possible to state Bike thinking does not happen
until there is a bike as an objectification of the raw idea 'bike' and
gravel-rash incentives to build it better. The notion that bike knowledge
exists before the fact 'bike' is a literary device employed employed to
maintain the rational discourse (hegemony through self-appraisal).
design objects improve through communicating & therefore providing the
means for increasing their correspondence to us and the environment...the
bike is a perfect example of this. a bike communicates through gravel-rash
and reflectors if you like.
the problem then is that there is a difficulty between language thinking
and visual thinking...a lack of correspondence...but i maintain that the
heart of this problem lies in the socio-cultural origin of the language not
between language and design.
design success i suggest should be determined by 'what does it generate ?'
questions...a good metaphor for this is the Garma or two way learning
principle in Indigenous Australian culture...garma is where two flows of
water muddy fresh monsoon flood water & full moon salt water tides
converge...the result is a foam where all the rich food sources congregate.
difference generates...therefore it can also be a mutual adaption...the
interactions between the visual and the language arts have always been
highly generative so 'no problem' there is a dynamic correspondence in this
tradition. however as in the bike you need design to write design but
design writing is not before the fact of the idea/object...they converge
together, mix and generate.
the study of design then should propose a new lexicon based in the design
science of correspondence a task that i suggest we are all doing anyway but
perhaps fear that the time is not yet right to make this purpose explicit
norm
[log in to unmask]
Norman Sheehan
Senior Research Officer
Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Studies Unit
University of Queensland
Brisbane Old 4072 Australia
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|