Dear John, José and Kari-Hans
Yes, it is part of the fun. And thanks for being so patient and interested.
"But do you believe that definition? Does it have conviction for you? I
bring up quotes from the literature and you readily dismiss them but you
readily accept something from your lecture notes? Please be explicit on
why or why you don't believe a certain maxim. I think this will greatly
aid the conversation".
A definition for me is a thinking tool, something onto which I hold,
so that I can ‘see’ the world from that perspective. Thus its value is also
its danger which is, as I have mentioned, to circumscribe the way I see.
Therefore, I am not committed to any definition in a sense that I subject it
to question. But I am committed to it (momentarily) for situations where
it helps me to frame a problem. Am I being more explicit? Does it help us converse?
Here I think it is a right place to mention my style of talking. I prefer to
speak in vague and short comments on the list because I find them
more inviting for dialogues. They allow wider interpretation and
others responses to my vagueness help me understand them and myself more.
I learn much from sorting out confusions.
"Let me ask what you mean by design product"?
I meant design as a noun.
"I must admit I am not familiar with the distinction between theory of/for
designing. Nuances of the english language elude this farm boy most of the
time. Would you school me in the difference and tell me why you put
yourself into the latter camp?"
School you, I won’t be able to. I myself am a ‘working class kid’ growing up
with janitors and gas station clerks and English is not even my first language.
I will share the little that I think I know and express it the best that I can.
I take theories of designing are theories explain designing. Theories for design,
are theories upon which designers make decisions and that may as well,
but not necessarily, include theories of design. (By the way, how do you
like the silicon valley? A different type of farming, huh?)
Sorry John, Kari-Hans, and José, if it is ok, I would rather not talk about theory
because I am sure others will elaborate on it through another thread and academic
publications. I want to focus on history to see where it can take us. I am a very
slow learner: I really should not have trespassed the land of theory. But then again,
if I didn’t who would have paid attention except my true friends.
"I should ask what you mean by beings here".
By beings, I meant things that exist.
"You second sentence seems to say that you
believe that histories of design and theories of design by observation are
not possible and therefore useless".
Hold it, hold it. Sorry for the badly written sentence. I shall rephrase it:
I think histories of design are as valuable as theories of design. And since I believe,
theories (by the definition that I use) of design are not possible, I think histories
of design are more valuable. Thus my interest for starting a thread on it.
"Can you reply with being more explicit about your own views?
This would help me understand more than just disagreeing with me".
I will try, and please continue to help me by asking me to clarify: the story goes like this
One morning, I woke up and realized … to be continued.
Rosan
______________________________________________________________________________
Werden Sie kreativ! Bei WEB.DE FreeMail heisst es jetzt nicht nur schreiben,
sondern auch gestalten. http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021142
|
