Dear Kari-Hans
thanks for the post. it is relevant to what i have thinking. i am chewing
St. Thomas 'exemplary cause' which i believe might lend theoretical support
to your wish to open up (again) the meanings of design (that might
eventually be useful to practice).
St. Thomas is aristotelian, so his 'exemplary cause' builds on and adds to
the four causes, formal, material, efficient and final. take the often used
example, the making of a statue. roughly speaking, the statue is the form,
the marble is the matter, the sculptor is the effecting agent, (let's say)
making a living is the intention. and a model (image, idea) in the
sculptor's mind before he makes the statue is the exemplar.
exemplary cause is a useful concept (in your case), because while related to
the form, effecting agent and intention, it is independent from them (at
least conceptually). and more importantly, exemplary cause is in the domain
of 'what is not there', thus about potential, about future, about design (in
a different meaning)....maybe.
i find also Terry (Love)'s definition of design useful, it focuses on
'specification', rather than intention. specification is the main meaning of
design that i use in my dissertation.
rosan
p.s. are you coming to bremen? we should talk.
Kari-Hans Kommonen wrote:
> Yes, I accept that, but I would go further.
>
> I think that the field of design is ignoring its responsibility and a
> great opportunity to participate in the intentional changing of the
> world - the grand duty of design - , if it does not develop a
> theoretical and practical understanding of the various design processes
> that all the time take place in the world, but which are not, as you
> say, "design processes in the original sense of "designing"", and which
> have often a problematic relationship to intentions.
|