Rosan wrote:
what is missing in the proposal (for me), as mentioned by David (Sless), and
hinted in the messages of Keith (Russell), Harold (Nelson) and now Pradeep,
(if i read them correctly) is (an) intellectual driver(s).
incidentally, this design community has been looking for, and attempting to
construct the core of design knowledge, be it as 'letness',
'communication/interaction', 'service', 'swamps', 'placement', 'evolution'.
these are the fulcums around which we can turn, spin, and dance
meaningfully. without which, movements are incoherent.
Alan Murdock (Foundation Faculty, The Art Institute of Portland) writes:
Rosan and others on the thread,
Looking for a single core to design is the thing that will destroy the current dynamic discourse in the field(s). Maybe I will sound a little too much like Derrida, but I don't think design should attempt to construct a single logos. Maybe to sound less like Derrida, I've been taking a class in the work of the Indian Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna. His whole thesis has to do with juxtaposing the phenomenal world with the "absolute" reality of things as empty of (complete) autonomy. Each thing ultimately relies on relationships to other things. Where this resonates with me on the level of design is the fact that it is in the fact of the interaction of the layers that design exists. Strip off too many layers and design vanishes into thin air.
My background is complex. I began college as an English lit student but earned a BA in dance, and an MA and MFA in intermedia and video art, which lead directly (or not) into designing. Recently I have been jealous of architects as most of the contemporary design writers that I deeply respect have a MArch degree. In these writers there seems to be a complete interrelation between the concept of formal relationships with that of identity construction, usability, technology, and material/engineering needs. Something that relies on engineering and technology only will be as useless to human beings as something solely built on the concept of identity construction.
In my view these architects, those publishing in Harvard Design Magazine, Architectural Record and the like are addressing the same issue that philosophers like Derrida and Nagarjuna are. Yes, design can have a fulcrum, but this is not a logos, nor is it autonomous from the layers around it, nor is it in any of the layers themselves, nor is it permanent. These things come and go, and it is through the interaction of these dynamics through time that the discourses are made vital. Ken Friedman points to this in a paper on design education in which he identifies that design is not the product, but the process of designing - the interaction between engineers, visual thinkers, materials, and so forth.
I would also say I agree that we cannot "train" people to be dynamic thinkers. We can train people to create textures in Photoshop and model in CAD and Animation software, but we must educate people to seek solutions through dynamic means that may have nothing to do with the CAD system or drawing/sketching or any of the other issues we have been debating.
Oh, Happy Thanksgiving and thanks for filling my inbox.
Alan
|