Ooops! It went to David. Once more to the list (sorry David)...
From: Aren Kurtgozu <[log in to unmask]>
To: davidsless <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 13:40:27 +0200
Dear list members,
Though I've been following the discussions on this list for almost two
years, this is the first time I feel encouraged to post a message to
the list. The brief exchange between Lubomir and David
concerning the relationship between design research and practice seems
to put a finger on what Gui Bonsiepe called "the discomfort of design
theory". Are theory and practice hermetically sealed domains without
any possibility of exchange between them? Are they so homogeneous in
themselves as to become that much heterogeneous to each other? Are we
to assign 'universals' solely to the domain of theory, while we allow
singularity to appear only in pratice? In brief, are they
incompossible? I suggest that any practice involves the
operationalization of frequently unacknowledged working of a theory in
the form of tacit knowledge. As Bonsiepe puts, "theory renders that
explicit which is already implicit in praxis as theory" (1).
Furthermore, a theory, inasmuch as it is not a determinate judgment,
might involve the activation or creation of concepts as it proceeds. A
reconciliation between the concept and singularity was the central
issue in Leibniz's monadology, for example. More recently, Italian
philosopher Giorgio Agamben attemted to resolve this issue with his
notion of "whatever singularities". Can they be of use to a
"designerly" discussion on the relation between theory and practice?
Aren Kurtgozu
References:
Agamben, Giorgio. The Coming Community. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 1993.
Bonsiepe, Gui. Interface: An Approach to Design. Maastricht: Jan van
Eyck Akademie, 1999. p.23
Aren Kurtgözü
Dr., Department of Industrial Design
Middle East Technical University (METU)
Ankara - Türkiye
Phones:
+90 312 210 22 14 (office)
+90 312 428 65 51 (evening)
Fax:
+90 312 210 12 51
-------------------
>Lubomir wrote
>
>> No one should expect that indulging in design research will make
him/her a
>> better designer. He/she will become a better theorist -- that's it.
>
>This seems to me such a bleak view. But if it is true, then many
practicing
>designers would have nothing to do with design research, and many
potential
>phd students with an interest in improving design through research,
would
>look elsewhere (though I now realise, following Ken's definitive
history of
>the list, that despite the list's name, phd design students are only
one
>small part of a MUCH LARGER set of interests on this list, and would
>probably not be missed).
>
>I'm not sure I know what being a 'better theorist' means, but I
suspect I
>don't want to become one.
>
>So, if design research does not enable me to become a better
designer, am I,
>along with others with a similar interest, doomed (at least on this
list)?
>
>I take it that, like Ken, your answer to my question about 'the idea
of
>creativity' is 'NO'.
>
>The world (on this list) gets bleaker.
>
>David
>
>--
>Professor David Sless
>BA MSc FRSA
>Co-Chair Information Design Association
>Senior Research Fellow Coventry University
>Director
>Communication Research Institute of Australia
>** helping people communicate with people **
>
>PO Box 398 Hawker
>ACT 2614 Australia
>
>Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
>
>phone: +61 (0)2 6259 8671
>fax: +61 (0)2 6259 8672
>web: http://www.communication.org.au
>
|