On 10/2/04 10:45 AM, "Jess Maertterer" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I'd like to see crossover applied science beeing educated and
> take shape turning out that form IS function. Call it: "Properties of
> Shape", "Practical Principles of Design" or something like "Panoptimum",
> but not "Mathematics".
It seems to me that part of the problem is that designers deal with abstract
structures as mental phenomena rather than in linguistic ways. We interpret
emergent situations in holistic, formal and phenomenal terms rather too
quickly, relying on structural analysis after this formalization has
occurred rather more than during its creation. Yet the codification and
manipulation of thought that math and formal logic permit are too
constrained and precise for the imaginative and reflective thought that
takes place during most forms of design. I think our problem is to find a
way to abstractly articulate how we reorganize intentional thought under the
situational constraints that determine formal expressions. There is no doubt
in my mind that a kind of logico-mathematical thought underpins both
conceptualization and its formal expression.
Math for designers (architects and engineers primarily) has been too
concerned with routine applications (areas, forces, etc) and not with
articulating concepts or formal expressions.
Two books that are important to understanding how math for designers might
be more closely coupled to thought and formal phenomena are:
George Lakoffa nd Rafael Nunez, "Where Mathematics Comes From: How the
Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being" Basic Books, NY 2000
Edward Rothstein, "Emblems of Mind: The inner Life of Music and
Mathematics", Times Books, NY, 1995
Charles Burnette
|