Happy new year! I'm excited for 2004 - I hope it will be
intellectually, critically and creatively fruitful for all of us. I'm
ready to jump into the latest hot debate...
On Friday, January 2, 2004, at 05:07 PM, Eduardo Corte-Real wrote:
> This is equivalent to say that the
> universe of Designology are the features present in objects that can be
> related to the process of Design.
Although if the focus is on the physical features that result from
designing, could this leave out the process, and it is the process that
is the social, cultural and political function of designing. As is
stated here the process is an external or secondary to the features.
So does this mean we need two forms of Designology, one based in the
physical sciences and one in the social sciences? Could this
inadvertently perpetuate the split we are trying to mend?
In the Fall 2003/Winter 2004 issue of Harvard Design Magazine there is
an article criticizing the use of the nine square grid assignment given
at many architecture schools during the mid 20th century. In essence it
taught students to think about design as separate from the program,
materials, and environment. Writer Timothy Love comes to the
conclusion that formal studies must be integrated with larger issues.
"What is missing from the classic kit-of-parts exercise... is a overlay
of content to instigate the architectural process." Love, T.
(2003/2004). Kit-of-Parts conceptualism: Abstracting Architecture in
the American Academy. <i>Harvard Design Magazine, 19,</i> 40-47.
To focus a concept such as Designology on the features in the objects
seems to support a purified formal study that neglects examination of
use and interaction both between designers and the product as well as
the end user and the product.
Best,
Alan
|