Rosan

I think it was Marcel Duchamp who said that "Aesthetics is to the artist as
ornithology is to the birds"

It may well be that the last person to ask about theories 'about' design are
designers themselves.

However, your argumentŠ
>If we want to have some control over the Life of PP,
>so that it serves some defined purposes; then we
>need some principles to guide its development.
Špresupposes that principles are external to and prior to the act of
designing. In this view, we have principles first (ontologically and
chronologically) and then we act on them--thinking before action. This way
of constructing a relationship between two types of action, privileges one
type of action (thinking) above doing.

Consider the following thought experiment. Imagine a time before designers
and before any design had been done (excluding prime causes such as god as
designer). Is it possible at such a time to think about a purpose for design
or a theory about design? Probably not. Indeed one would need at least two
designed things to begin to formulate a theory about designed
things--drawing out similarities and contrasts. Also, one would need at
least two designers to begin to develop a theory about designing.

Therefore designing precedes theories about design both logically and
chronologically. Theories 'about' design necessarily proceed designing. They
are a kind of post factum analysis. Such theories can only explain what
designers have done. Can such theories be used to guide designers in the
future? Possibly, but there is no *necessary* logical requirement that they
do so. What is clear is that such theories are parasitic on design and
designers but they may not necessarily be symbiotic with designing

Thus there may well be no dynamic relationship between the two types of
theory. But if there is such a relationship in any particular instance, the
relationship has to be demonstrated and argued for, it cannot be assumed.

But you seem to want something more than a possible dynamic relationship.
You want a relationship in which one party controls the other.

> If we want to have some control over the Life of PP,
> so that it serves some defined purposes;
> then we need some principles to guide its development.

My immediate question is why? Cannot designing contain its own purposes?
Does it have to have a purpose outside itself, and be controlled from
outside? Can we actually define purposes outside the design process itself?
As many designers discover when they are first commissioned by a client, it
is up to the designer to formulate the purpose of the design. Such purposes
may well be emergent properties of the design process itself--a kind of
autopoisis.

The idea of design as a core intellectual activity and a discipline in its
own right--an idea that has prompted this list and other activities in
promoting design in tertiary education--must surely face the possibility
that there are no 'defined purposes' nor any 'principles to guide PP'
outside of itself, but rather that designing provides its own raison detre.

If, however, you are concerned that designers may not act in the best
interests of society and therefore need controlling, then you may have a
case. But the case would be one for having general principles of moral
engagement. This is why I mentioned 'respect for others' as a key criterion
in judging my kind of design theories. But are such principles part of any
theory of design, or are they principles about how one should conduct
oneself in the world regardless of whether one is a designer, an inventor of
theories about design, or just another human being?

I should add that my alarm bells always sound when people talk about
control, and I am prompted to ask: who is doing the controlling and in whose
interest are they acting?  It's the old question of 'who guards the
guardians?'. My alarm bells ring at their loudest when the guardians are
self appointed!

so when you say:
>then we need some principles
I ask who is this 'we' who has such a 'need'?

In short, I'm not convinced that the distinction between thinking and acting
is useful, particularly if the distinction implies that thinking is in some
sense superior and prior to acting-- principles before praxis.

I am well aware that in the academic world many take this distinction for
granted and work within it. However, if design is to become a central part
of intellectual life in this century, this distinction and many others will
have to be rethought through action.

David

-- 
Professor David Sless
Director
Communication Research Institute of Australia
** helping people communicate with people **

PO Box 398 Hawker
ACT 2614 Australia

Mobile: 0412 356 795

phone: +61 (0)262 598 671
fax:   +61 (0)262 598 672
web:   http://www.communication.org.au






%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%