This all seems to have been going on for a long while
and I've not read all of the posts, indeed I seem to be
reading them less and less....so please forgive me if this
seems grumpy but I think there are some basic points which
need some thought.
> "As I said, I think that 'the design point of view' is not unique and does
> share many elements with 'the robotics point of view', 'the artificial
> societies point of view', and in general with 'the emergence point of
> view'".
>
> I am quite willing to entertain the idea that a design point of view is not unique.
> But if it is the case, then why bother examining designing?
O.K. I share 98% of my DNA with a chimp. Does this mean
that either 'humanity' or 'chimpanzees' are not worth
studying (even if we restrict this to DNA) because of a 98%
overlap? Perhaps the 'common base' makes it worthwhile
looking at both!
> I recognize the benefits of learning from other fields of
> inquiry and overlapping among fields but if design as a field has nothing unique
> to offer others, how do we stand as a field?
As a field design would have nothing to offer any other
area unless there were overlaps! Its value has to lie
within these otherwise there is no means for it to
communicate with other disciplines. Such a process has to
be a two way one, the alternative seems to be an
overbearing arrogance. If you wish design to be a 'unique'
field you are (more or less) condemning it to have no value
to others disciplines.
Are you mistaking the 'new' for the 'unique'?
Are you mistaking the notion of a unique field
for the people you'd like to consider 'unique' or special
within it? Within Fine Art there's been (!) a long enough
battle to get rid of the spurious notion of the 'genius'
that Kant introduced into the 'Critique of Judgement' to
get around the consequences of the 'sublime'.
> Or as Jonas asked once "How can design achieve autonomy?"
Perhaps if 'it' had more confidence in talking to other
fields it wouldn't feel the need to achieve autonomy. 'It'
would know 'it' had something to offer and 'it' would know
'it' could gain from an exposure to others.
Maybe having the confidence in what design is capable of
doing will generate an openess to other ideas without the
fear that something will be devalued. Indeed it may be the
case that through a crital enquiry 'it' will realise that
it will do better for exposing itself in this way,
'maturing' through the exposure.
all the best,
Mark
|