Dear Francois-Xavier,
thanks for this interesting mail!
It is right, you (and your generation of design students) have served
and still serve as guinea pigs for many of the very divergent
theories of the authors mentioned. We (I) appreciate that a lot.
But has it really been so tedious as you say? My experience as a
teacher is, that my students mostly enjoy our struggle for
theoretical ground...
So, maybe it is a joint achievement, when you are able to say:
>I therefore maintain that Theses and Dissertations by graduates in Design are
>valuable "references" in that they are a focused efforts to specifically
>address the dynamic nexus between the human agent, the living environment and
>the artifacts (material and immaterial). To my present knowledge, it is
>Michel Jullien (cited in my yesterday post) and his friends, in Paris, who
>first outlined the theoretical and empirical exploration of this nexus that I
>(with a few others) propose as the subject matter of Design and Design
>Research. By the way, as a direct response to the initiator of this thread,
>the "Design Nexus" study is far different from studies aimed at merely
>knowing "consumers" in a "market" ("marketing research") in order to
devise "marketable" artifacts...
I want to refer to the important concept of "design nexus" ("the
dynamic nexus between the human agent, the living environment and the
artifacts").
This is not really new (and here I agree with Ken's critique), but
has been formulated as the central aim of designing and design
research for many years. Just to name some examples:
- Horatio Greenough, Form and Function, 1853
- Christopher Alexander, Notes on the Synthesis of Form, 1964
- Herbert Simon, The Sciences of the Artificial, 1969
- Wolfgang Jonas, Design-System-Theorie, 1994
- Gui Bonsiepe, Interface-Design neu begreifen, 1996
In an article for Design Issues ("A Scenario for Design - or: how to
become a discipline...", Vol XVII No 2, Spring 2001) I have tried to
formulate my concept of design as an interface discipline, acting in
the dynamic region between the artifactual and the contextual. And my
work is continuing here...
But, to emphasize this: this focus, the choice of this concept as my
special field of interest, is a choice, a design decision (regarding
my theory design), which tells nothing about the "truth" of this
approach towards understanding designing.
I see, that you are quite convinced to have found the right entry now
(the design nexus), that is ok. But take care that you do not end up
as tedious relics as those researchers that you are criticizing now...
In my view, due to the nature of our field, both teachers and
students will have to accept their simultaneous roles as experts or
as ignorants or as guinea pigs. I don't have a problem with this. It
is the only way to proceed...
Best wishes from Berlin, Germany,
Jonas
__________
>Dear Ken and colleagues,
>
>
>
><Many important books in design research have been cited in threads on
>this list. The past year alone has seen citations to Henry Petroski,
>Dick Buchanan, Pirkko Anttila, Victor Margolin, John Warfield, Chris
>Nippert-Eng, Klaus Krippendorff, Herbert Simon, Rachel Cooper, Donald
>Norman, Edward Tufte, Margaret Bruce, Per Mollerup, Louis
>Bucciarelli, Birgit Jevnaker, John Chris Jones, Vladimir Hubka, Ernst
>Eder, John Heskett. Pelle Ehn, Nigel Cross, Erik Stolterman, Richard
>Coyne, Buckminster Fuller, Harold Nelson every time I think the
>list is long enough, I think of another name that seems indispensable.>
>
>
><Judicious praise requires perspective. It is a mistake to praise the
>work of excellent new scholars by claiming that their work lays the
>foundations of a missing literature.>
>
>
>I am referrimg to these two paragraphs above of your post yesterday.
>
>With indeed due respect and acknowledgment for the invaluable contribution of
>all these authors, with their "seminal texts", to the shaping of the field of
>Design, there is however, in my opinion, an aspect that pleads for a foremost
>interest to the intellectual work of graduates from various Design schools.
>
>We (yes, I am one of them!) are indeed the only ones who, since the last
>three decades, in class rooms and studios, have served as guinea pigs for
>most of the above authors' theories. We have (and many students still are!)
>endured the tedious and premonitory search by our professors, the majority of
>them not "Design" trained; yet, it is true, they are the "corner stones" of
>the profession. In our turn now, we Design graduates are in a position to
>carry on the job, but this time with a specially "trained" focus on what is
>still to be widely ascertained as "Design studies".
>
>I therefore maintain that Theses and Dissertations by graduates in Design are
>valuable "references" in that they are a focused efforts to specifically
>address the dynamic nexus between the human agent, the living environment and
>the artifacts (material and immaterial). To my present knowledge, it is
>Michel Jullien (cited in my yesterday post) and his friends, in Paris, who
>first outlined the theoretical and empirical exploration of this nexus that I
>(with a few others) propose as the subject matter of Design and Design
>Research. By the way, as a direct response to the initiator of this thread,
>the "Design Nexus" study is far different from studies aimed at merely
>knowing "consumers" in a "market" ("marketing research") in order to
>devise "marketable" artifacts...
>
>It is true, present Design graduates' groping can not, as such, constitute a
>foundation for an academic "discipline" in the traditional and well
>established sense. It is true also, on the other hand, that Design graduates'
>intellectual efforts can also be referential and inspirational in the sense
>that, for a new, holistic and integrated object of study such as the "Design
>nexus" above, there is not yet a focused academic tradition to refer to. We
>all precisely are in the process of building this tradition, and therefore
>any input should be deemed valuable per its face value, until it is proven
>otherwise after careful scrutiny... by our more experienced professors and
>mentors. Out of the mass of graduates production, it is hoped, more
>focused "seminal" [RE]search threads will emerge.
>
>Thus, in addition to non-trained designers' views and guidance, Design
>graduates' work (pupils outrunning their masters!) exclusively on the above
>mentioned "Design nexus" will more directly contribute to building
>specifications for Design concepts that practitioners in Design will more
>easily embody into USABLE - instead of only "marketable" - material and
>immaterial structures.
>
>Regards.
>
>
>
>François-X. N.I.NSENGA
--
|
