dear all:
I was very interested in such discussion, because in the tradicional
engineers circles design is defined as a way to solve problems, to attend
needs or something similar without a more precise scope. Due I'm starting
from phenomenology, for me, there is no definition of design as something
closeable, limited and stable. A process carries out a lot of limitations in
their meaning, (for example an order) but when I heard of Bucciarelli's
approach of design, I am very seduced to agree with him.
In my research design is a little diferent, it is a being-state wich exist
in all of us, in diferent levels of conciencious (May be one of those levels
could be called talent). I think our discussions of design are extremaly
positivists and design is not concerned with an invariant universal set of
characteristics. Such a conjecture could be a error, and may be from
positivism and rationalis we never could find design, because design is
variable at all and all the time: it is the diferenciation itself. From my
opinion, a good direction to study design is to see to the time of design
and their implications. In the line of the time, design could be a process,
an act, an fear, a wish. The temporal nature of design could acquire
diferents forms, but in all of them I (you or we) am (are) in design
(being-in-design). Designers are in design in a more careful way that common
people. That's only the diference.
DSc. José Aravena Reyes
|