I also feel rather uncomfortable when reflections on a fascinating issue are
countered by opponents that do not permit the many shades of gray between
the extremes.

Apparently, the very thought that designing could be a practice that
constitutes being human is threatening some designers wishing to preserve
design as a privileged expertise of few individuals, invoking all kinds
polarities including rational/intuitive, elites/masses,
individualism/collectivism and so forth.

I suggested to model the discussion on our experience with language as
another fundamental ability that defines human beings.  While we all speak
there is plenty of room for poets, compelling orators, and imaginative story
tellers.  I would get very nervous if these were to say that they, being
acknowledged experts, are the only ones whose voices should be heard.

We had a situation resembling this attitude about 500 years ago when the
catholic church felt threatened by literacy becoming more common in Europe
and books other than the bible were read; including when Luther violated
church doctrine and dared to translate the bible from latin (accessible
mainly to priests) into the vernacular (accessible by ordinary but literate
people).  It caused many years of war.

Denying ordinary individuals the ability to design their own surroundings by
whichever means they have available would make designers professional
parasites on humanity.

klaus

-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhDs in Design
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Kari-Hans Kommonen
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 6:17 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Design By All

Dear Lubomir, Glenn, Gunnar,

Siding with Ken's more elaborate response, I am puzzled by consistent
breeding of the 'black-or-white' / 'either-or' positions in the
discussion.

Why is it that we so often end up in this 'nothing or everything'
dichotomy? This seems to be a recurring obstacle in a community with
as much diversity as we have here. One reason is probably that there
is the illusionary 'Common Ground' formed by the fact that we use
same words with more or less diverse meanings, as discussed by
Michael and others a few weeks ago. But even if we try to elaborate
positions and meanings, we still have trouble, because it seems to me
that the elaborations are not really read.


I have not seen any of the 'proponents' of the 'design-by-all' or
whatever we might call this position, advocating that 'everybody
should design everything' or 'all design should be done by laymen'.


However, I have seen the 'opponents' repeating that this is the
argument of the 'proponents', which has been repeatedly and fairly
patiently dismissed by the 'proponents'.

I think that the 'proponents' have been very moderate in what they
are proposing, and respectful of the expertise of designers.

Maybe some of the 'opponents' have read the posts of other
'opponents' and mistaken that they are citing the positions of the
'proponents' even if that has not been the case?


Maybe it would be more productive and interesting to read the
messages more carefully and check whether people are actually
proposing/claiming the things the responses respond to?


Kari-Hans