Good questions, again, Rosan.
You may find is useful to read the chapter "Having an Experience" in
John Dewey's Art As Experience. Whether or not you have any interest in
Dewey, the value of reading this chapter is the way Dewey probes with
great insight the relationships of thinking, doing, and making.
Tim's comment points toward a similar need to distinguish:
(1) the knowledge of design products (the results of designing),
[knowledge of the made-thing--and of things yet to be made that we
conceive (by invention or discovery) to be possible]
(2) the knowledge of designing (the art or discipline of design practice),
[knowledge of the art, methods, and techniques of designing as an
activity]
(3) theoretical and philosophical knowledge of the nature of design in
any of its senses.
[knowledge of the principles which operate in both of the former and
also explain the role of design in culture]
Lo, we have returned, once again, to the problems of knowing What, How,
and Why. A remarkable compass for our field, providing a way to
understand the differences among kinds of design knowledge and, indeed,
among the levels of undergraduate, masters, and doctoral education.
(By the way, the tangle that Alain and I are chewing on is precisely, I
believe, one of the variations of these relationships. We are gradually
exploring our different views of the relationships, and seeing what
their practical implications may be for education programs and degrees.
This is the nature of pluralism. We have different ways of
understanding the What, How, and Why of design.)
As a wise person once told me: We distinguish things in order to better
understand their relationships and interdependencies. :)
Dick
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|