Glenn,
The definitions of rhetoric extend beyond Encarta's scope. The two main
dictionaries for scholarship and editing are Merriam-Webster's Collegiate
Dictionary (not the paperbacks and other editions) and the Shorter Oxford
English Dictionary (also not the paperback Oxfords). My SOED is elsewhere
right now, but Merriam-Webster's offers this definition:
Main Entry: rhetˇoˇric Pronunciation: 're-t&-rik Function: noun Etymology:
Middle English rethorik, from Middle French rethorique, from Latin
rhetorica, from Greek rhEtorikE, literally, art of oratory, from feminine
of rhEtorikos of an orator, from rhEtOr orator, rhetorician, from eirein to
say, speak -- more at WORD Date: 14th century 1 : the art of speaking or
writing effectively: as a : the study of principles and rules of
composition formulated by critics of ancient times b : the study of writing
or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion 2 a : skill in the
effective use of speech b : a type or mode of language or speech; also :
insincere or grandiloquent language 3 : verbal communication : DISCOURSE
for which, see:
Main Entry: 1 disˇcourse Pronunciation: 'dis-"kOrs, -"kors, dis-' Function:
noun Etymology: Middle English discours, from Medieval Latin & Late Latin
discursus; Medieval Latin, argument, from Late Latin, conversation, from
Latin, act of running about, from discurrere to run about, from dis- +
currere to run -- more at CAR Date: 14th century 1 archaic : the capacity
of orderly thought or procedure : RATIONALITY 2 : verbal interchange of
ideas; especially : CONVERSATION 3 a : formal and orderly and usually
extended expression of thought on a subject b : connected speech or writing
c : a linguistic unit (as a conversation or a story) larger than a sentence
4 obsolete : social familiarity
In a narrow sense, one might say I am extending the definition of rhetoric
by offering my proposition. My proposition is appropriate in a broad sense
- and certainly appropriate in terms of the propositions you offered.
As I see it, Starck is not a designer and he does not practice design. He
is a sculptor and a conceptual artist who creates artifacts. If these
artifacts fulfilled all their possible functions well, he would be a
designer. They do not, and he is not, because it makes no difference to him
when the artifacts he designs do not work as long as they challenge the
notions of what such artifacts ought to be, do or look like. I would say
Starck is expert in many things. He is great at shaping design debate, a
talent quite different from the skill of shaping designed artifacts or the
process of design. He is excellent at publicity. He is good in that aspect
of marketing that involves helping companies to create products that excite
and meet customer needs. Even so, he often fails as designer.
Starck is a talented fellow. Perhaps if he were to engage in a bit of
serious thinking, and expand his reading to issues such as these, he might
add design skill to his artistic talent.
A library of books cannot make skill, but the failure to think will
certainly shape a distinction between comprehensive design process and
artistic manufacture put forward under the rubric of design. Starck is a
skilled artist. He is not a skillful designer. In this sense, I do not
address the issue of taste inherent in Starck's edgy shapes or his
post-modern sensibility: I address the problem of Starck artifacts that do
not work as they should or endanger users when they do.
Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Knowledge Management
Norwegian School of Management
+47 22.98.51.07 Direct line
+47 22.98.51.11 Telefax
Home office:
+46 (46) 53.245 Telephone
+46 (46) 53.345 Telefax
email: [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
