Dear list
David Sless here again to do a bit of tinkering.
I'd like to endorse Erik's position--not just the substance but the
spirit too. Erik, in a very gentle manner uses an extremely powerful
crowbar:
> I think Ken opens up for my position when he writes:
> "Designers are action oriented, and
> the passion that is natural to activists sometimes runs ahead of the
> analytical skill required for philosophical inquiry."
One of the sub-threads on this list—who has the skill, ability or
knowledge to speak on particular topics—is clearly articulated by Ken
in the quote above. It is then massively reinforced by Terry's neat set
of pigeon holes.
Which one do you fit into?
I don't want to get into a brawl over this but I think both Ken's and
Terry's position could be seen by some of our more sensitive brethren
as a put down. To paraphrase "You are a designer—a passionate activist
who gets enthusiastic and this interferes with your capacity to think
clearly. Design Philosophers are there to manage the way you think. GET
BACK IN YOUR BOX"
Whenever 'theorists' get excited, particularly with grand pigeon holing
schemes, I recommend a cold shower.
Terry's vision of 'three incomensurable worlds' is itself a vision from
within a particular clearly identifiable philosophical pigeon hole, as
are his divisions of labours.
I'm with gentle Erik when he says:
> To articulate design practice is the first step to a philosophy of
> design. Any kind of reflection on practice can, if cared for and dealt
> with in deep respect for the richness and complexity of practice, lead
> to philosophical thoughts of value.
> A practicing designer can, though, prepare for action by delving into
> carefully expressed articulations of the fundamental character and
> core of design. Being prepared is partly about accepting that there is
> no final answer 'out there'. So, when Rosan finds herself back at the
> starting point, since there is no universal 'evaluation criteria' for
> what is a better articulation --- she is in the right place.
>
> PoD is, when carried out within design research and by design
> researchers, itself a design adventure. It is a process of creation
> and composition -- and an extraordinary exiting and rewarding one.
One of the most rewarding and fascinating parts of designing is the
careful analytic teasing out of ideas through making forms—coherence,
consistency, turning practices into rules and applying the rules back
into the design process are all part of that. Some of us may be better
than others at articulating that analytic process, but I don't think
any designer would suggest that this is not a profoundly intellectual
process in which 'passion' and 'analytic skill' go hand in hand, not
the one obscuring the other. This is the stuff out of which a pod may
arise (I prefer the lower case 'pod' to the pretentious 'PoD'.)
As to the rest: GET BACK IN YOUR BOX.
From the clear light of early morning in Stoke on Trent,
such a good place for designing philosophy.
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 1008
Hawksburn, Melbourne
VIC 3142, Australia
UK phone: +44 (0)17 8284 8744
UK Mobile:+44 (0)79 9072 8465
fax: +61 (0)2 6259 8672
web: http://www.communication.org.au
|