Dear list,


Since I posted my "Nightmare"-note yesterday, I have had a number of
reactions (some by private mail, others in public via the list), all of
which I appreciate very much. Thank you, all!

Although the responses are not clearly pointing in any one direction
(i.e., either towards relieving me of my worries, or confirming them), I
think we have enough of an issue here for me to pursue it a little further.

First, let me briefly review some relevant passages in the debate of the
"Design in the University" Online Conference.

One such passage (or rather, succession of related passages) that has
stuck in my mind is from Richard Taylor's Keynote address in Session 1.
He said:

"One of the questions that arises from such discussions [about
exchanging understandings of design across discipline boundaries] is "to
what degree can this knowledge about design be captured and studied
rigorously?". Some are highly sceptical in this regard. [...] The one
thing that we should never do is hide unnecessarily behind art and
creativity. Rather the goal is to allow creativity and art to flourish
by supporting them wherever possible with as rigorous knowledge as we
can muster. [...] Lastly, in terms of concern about the proposal, on one
hand are some who feel that "rigorous study" is antithetical to what
they know about design. On the other some believe that unless design can
be fully reduced to a matter of empirical science then no place should
be allocated for it in the university." [My brackets.]

I see this as Richard's recognition of the potential for conflict that I
tried to condense into my nightmare note. A potential for conflict that
had already been on my mind for some time prior to the conference, and
which I have discussed in greater depth elsewhere. [Those of you who
read Danish: please be referred to a recent paper of mine (Galle 2003).]
According to the passage(s) quoted above, there are people who are
"highly sceptical" about the rigorous (scientific) approach to design,
and people who feel it to be "antithetical" to their thinking; probably
the same people whom Richard warn not to "hide unnecessarily behind art
and creativity". (Although Richard says "we" about them -- "the one
thing WE should never do"--, I'm afraid there is no such friendly
all embracing "we", but rather a demarcation between people outside and
people inside our community of design science & research.)

What would they hide from, then? Presumably from us! From what they may
perceive as the invading hordes of design scientists & researchers who
come to "support [art and creativity] wherever possible with as
rigorous knowledge as we can muster". Well, who can blame them if they
want to hide? For who are WE to think THEY need our support to "allow
creativity and art to flourish"?

Forgive me for this harsh reading of Richard's excellent text (to which
I am not at all unsympathetic at heart); but in my current nightmarish
state of mind it conjures up pictures of, say, Spaniards taking
possession of Inca settlements, Missionaries trying to save Heathen
souls, or whatever. (Feel free to substitute your own favourite horror scenes.)

Enough horror for now. The point is, we should not close our eyes to the
fact that the overall project of our community as defined through this
list, and of the UCI DS proposal may involve A CLASH OF CULTURES that
should be taken seriously and dealt with from the outset, as a necessary
condition for the project to succeed.

To spell it out in less dramatic but perhaps clearer terms, we may say
that the clash is between the HARD-NOSES (us) and the SOFT-NOSES
("them", with all due respect, and no offence intended). The Soft-Noses
would speak of design in such terms as "Nerve", "Genius Loci", "Move",
and "Compositional Unity". (Don't ask me for Names; this is a gross
over-simplification, but not without some truth in it. I for one, was
brought up in that tradition myself.) Hard-Noses live in a world of
"Rigorous knowledge", "Replicability of results", "Validity" etc. (I
believe most of us fall into this second category, but because reality
is so damned complex, lots of us don't fit into any of them. I know, I know.)

Chris Rust in his post "Re: Per's nightmare Nightmare" [Nov. 20] said:

"I'm certainly learning that the word "art" means something completely
different to some contributors than it does to me."

Hence my oversimplified dichotomy above, to give a hint of what I think
it means to me.

[An aside:]
More than a hint would be hard to give. Is art a quest for perfection in
the mere sense of **absense of errors**: what software design seems to
strive for, probably as a reaction to the "Software Crisis" (Boehm and
Basili, 2000); is art rather a quest for something **sublime**
("Quailty", perhaps?) that goes beyond the simple right and wrong of
"errors"? And is self-expression of the artist a defining characteristic?
[End of Aside.]

Chris also said:

"But I would say to Per that, if somebody is frightened by our ideas, we
cannot say that is their fault. We are the ones who are doing the
frightening and maybe we need to pay more attention to the way we are
introducing these ideas."

which is essentially the very point I have just repeated in a more
elaborate version above.


Fiona Candy, in her kind and humorous note "Re: Per's nightmare
Nightmare" [Nov. 20] said:

"You may be right about the**artists** having nightmares about the
researchers** (although my personal experience has been much more vice
versa) and trying to be obstructive- but I for one would no longer have
much sympathy with them."

Being both a researcher and an artist herself, Fiona is obviously one of
the "boundary people" that Richard spoke of. A light i the dark, if I
may say so. :)


What, apart from Fiona, might turn the nightmare into a happy dream
would be some compelling argument that after all, science is just art by
other means. Any suggestions?


Best regards,
Per.



References:

* Boehm B and V R Basili (2000), Gaining intellectual control of
software development, Computer - IEEE Computer Magazine 33:5, 27-34.

* Galle P (2003), Forskning i de kunstneriske designfag, Nordisk
Arkitekturforskning / Nordic Journal of Architetural Research 16:3, 81-88.


--

* Per Galle
*
* Mosevangen 18
* DK-3460 Birkeroed, Denmark
*
* (+45) 45 82 81 05