Hello
First, I must thank everyone for helping me formulate a summary an design
research controversies for my research paper which is to be complete at the
end of Dec. I would have never been able to grasp the complexity of all of
the forces involved in shaping what design research could be.
After reading Sanjoy, Pradees, Liz and Rosans comments I felt the need to
summarize my view of design education and research. I am an active sculptor
and teaching in industrial design at Konstfack University in Stockholm
Sweden. I teach and do research in a developing an evolutionary model that
introduces fundamental form and space aswell as the form giving processes
within design activities. After twenty years of teaching I have recently
arranged a collaboration with the Architectural school at Chalmers
University in Gothenburg, Sweden to do my PhD in form theory and practice.
The way I see it, the field of industrial design developed its' body of
knowledge by exploring an alternative process in product development that
included the human side of" making things". Both from a user / consumer
/cultural perspective and from the perspective of the involved designer that
includes subjective and objective methods in coherent design process.
Even though our focus on "making things" is been rightfully challenged by
insight into sustainability, deeper social and cultural involvement and
our understanding of physical laws that speak of a universal in constant
flux; there is a core (re: Pradeep Yammiyavar) of design activities that
have to do with how things take shape that should not be neglected in this
forum.
Obviously what helps train a designers creative methodology can be traced to
unique skills and insight into; how to intuitively work with the inherent
properties of materials, understanding spatial context,(both physical and
conceptual), knowing how to solve a functional problem through a number of
different form/space solutions, visually recognizing and then analyzing with
the hands and mind why -things don¹t fit together- in an aesthetical and
functional way, seeing the space between "things" as an equally important
quality of a solution as the physical material are.
Without these physical, hands-on or rather body-on experiences, and a
perceptually based abstract and concrete thinking our students would not be
able to handle the complexity that holistic product development involves.
Through my years of experience as a teacher and as an active artist I
conclude that it is through the conceptual and perceptual feed-back and
feed-forward activities that designers experience that make them better
equipped to deal with chaotic "fuzzy" world that Liz sanders mentions. Her
own words are "I would not want to be working in the fuzzy front end without
designers." She goes on to recognized that " the ability to create, to see
patterns, to see the whole and spot relevant opportunities" is needed when
ideas are being formulated as well as when they are to be solved.
This "fuzzy" perceptual, aesthetical, conceptual way a designer works can
not be developed through the professional or academic methods in marketing,
as clearly explained in Ricardo Sosa comment
>,"innovative design artifacts cannot be expected to emerge from a market-based
approach. Marketing is constrained by beliefs and judgments of what exists<.
Nor can social sciences, art history, universal design, sustainability,
engineering management etc give us the methods design must develop from
within its professional and academic experience.
Design does not fall under the domain of some other science as implied by
some of the comments in this conference. The Design domain should not
define itself as multi-disciplinary or something in between: art,
technology, science, culture, business etc. It need to collaborate with in
cross disciplinary projects in order to discover what it contribution is.
The fulcrum (Rosan Chow) or pivotal center for the dance that Rosan so
nicely put it is not intellectual driver (that doesn't challenge western
academic thought enough) it is the perceptual and conceptual merge which
recognizes the roll perception plays in developing cognition.
( Here are a number of references to philosophy, cognitive sciences and
designers that support this statement i.e. Peter Gärdenfors 2002 -Concetual
Space, Lakoff and Johnson 1999- Philosophy of the Flesh, the embodied mind
and it challenge to western thought , Martin Buber 1955- Humanity and her
art, Malcolm McCullough 1996- Abstracting Crafts, the Practiced Digital
Hand)
Finally, the thermo energy needed to bake Sanjoys' Lasanga model could be
this merge of conception and perception that is human centered. The economy
considerations could be the baking pan the lasanga is placed in.
Take care
Cheryl
__________________
Professor Cheryl Akner-Koler
Konstfack
University College of Arts, Crafts and Design
Department of Industrial Design
Valhallavägen 191
SE-104 51 Stockholm
work 08 450 4172
mobil 070 279 83 76
Here are the comments I refer to in my message.
>The biggest changes are occurring at the ³fuzzy front end², the
> pre-design phase or the generative research phase. (The earliest
> portions of the design development process have a number of different
> names today). The fuzzy front end is not adequately served by
> analytical minds trained in the scientific method. It requires the
> ability to create, to see patterns, to see the whole and spot relevant
> opportunities. I would not want to be working in the fuzzy front end
> without designers. The changes are happening here and we need to
> prepare students for this new design space of the future. We will need
> many designers who can play in this space in the near future.
>
Let me address just one issue to
which designers can relate well. It is widely agreed that innovative design
artifacts cannot be expected to emerge from a market-based approach.
Marketing is constrained by beliefs and judgments of what exists. To
transform the field it is necessary to build hypotheses of what *could*
exist. This cannot be the subject of study for marketers since imagined
artifacts need to be formalized in some way to be assessed. This synthesis
takes part within the design realm. To affirm the opposite would be to
define design as optimization.
-- Ricardo Sosa
SID: 200036769
PhD candidate, 4th year
Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition
Faculty of Architecture, University of Sydney
http://www.arch.usyd.edu.au/~rsos7705
Den 03-11-27 11.04, skrev "Rosan Chow" <[log in to unmask]>:
>
it is often heard that design is multi-disciplinary, but what does that
mean? as a student of design, i am yet to find an articulation of this
concept satisfising (to use herbert simon's term) for the purpose of
grounding design as a distinct discipline different from but complimentary
to sciences and humanities. lest that i miss great literature out there on
the subject, please send me the references, i would be grateful to read them
and adjust my view then.
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.
best rosan
>
|
