I can see it going either way.
If we are now constructing something called "design", then it is surely
being built, in part, on the cumulative history of designerly
activities. Insofar as "design" is the result of that which has
happened, then one might argue that "design" has existed in some
proto-form ever since we have been doing those things we identify now as
contributing to "design".
One may then choose to say "design" only exists from the time we
recgonise it as existing; or one may say that "design" has existed for
as long as those proto-elements of it have existed and we are only now
discovering the holistic essence of it. It's a matter of choosing
whether "design" is a concept of the integrated whole, or whether it is
the collection of those things that have happened before (or, at least,
that have been concepts known to us for some time).
I don't think it really matters which one chooses, so long as one is
clear on the difference.
Cheers.
Fil
Rosan Chow wrote:
> Dear All
>
> It is a habit of some to suggest that Art and Design is a
> sub-(field,discipline,tradition-you pick the word/concept you like) of
> DESIGN. This overarching (field,discipline, tradition) DESIGN, I
> believe, has never existed, but is under
> construction...retrospectively...from our present point of view.
>
> am i right or am i wrong?
>
> Rosan
--
Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University Tel: 416/979-5000 x7749
350 Victoria St. Fax: 416/979-5265
Toronto, ON email: [log in to unmask]
M5B 2K3 Canada http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|