I'd like to comment on one point raised by Jean.
Excerpts from mail: 3-Oct-100 Rhetoric and design by Jean [log in to unmask]
> I'll add my 2cts in the thread (though it seems to me to carry the
idea >that language -and/or communication- is central to design, not
>necessarily my conviction).
I certainly agree that communication is only one aspect of design--or
one way to approach its effectiveness in society. However, it can be a
powerful approach. And it is an approach that is still not deeply
explored. The formalisms of grammar and logic, developed earlier in the
20th century, still influence much of our study of design and products.
On language, however, I think we should be cautious. The danger, I
believe, lies in regarding language as "words" or "verbal"
communication. If language is so conceived, then communication and
rhetoric have little direct value to understanding design--except
perhaps in how designers talk with clients. A better approach is
suggested by Dewey, who argues that language extends to physical
features, gestures, and a wide range of other elements that enable
products to "speak" to us. (Dewey's term.)
Following Barthes ("The Rhetoric of the Image"), semioticians can be
comfortable with a broader conception of language needed to approach
design.
Dick
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|