good point,
michael,
embedding research in the process of communication that it generates.
we often attribute some unquestionable objectivity to the products of what
is labeled research (as distinct from poetry and fiction). there is no
reason to assume that the users, audiences (as you say), or designers read
the results of research the same way as the researcher did.
my interest is the users of artifacts who determine what artifacts mean in
the users life, regardless of the designers' intentions in the designers'
life. designers can claim any intentionality they wish, what matters is
what their proposals (specifications, sketches, presentations, etc. --
ultimately artifacts) do in the life of their stakeholders (users).
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael A R Biggs [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 4:33 AM
To: Klaus Krippendorff; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Design and intention
Dear Klaus, Rosan et al
I take your point about how Rosan is using the concept of intention.
Perhaps the reference was less appropriate in response to her comments. My
"intention" was to refer to literature specially about this point in
relation to the broader discussion that has been online recently.
Klaus points out that meaning is determined by how a message received
rather than the intention of its sender. I agree. I am currently also
minded to think of "research" in this way. We are less interested in claims
of work being research by the "researcher", than in evidence of that work
being received as research by an audience or community of users. This is
part of my current focus on the importance of audiences in research.
Michael
At 19:13 09/01/2005, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
>in my reading of rosan's post, she too argues against intentionality as
>a defining criterion. instead she resurrects terry's suggestion to focus
on
>specifications.
>i made the same point earlier, focusing on proposals -- verbal, visual,
>performative, demonstrative -- and insisting that proposals
(specifications)
>reside in the domain of communication.
>
>the meaning of communication is not determinable by the communicator (the
>intentional fallacy).
>
>a designer can make a proposal but if nobody reads it as a proposal, it did
>not propose (or specify) anything.
>
>people may read something as a proposal even if it was not intended as such
>(or as proposing what others are reading into what was said), then it has
>the effect of a proposal -- as read or understood.
************************************************************
Dr Michael A R Biggs
Associate Dean Research and Reader in Visual Communication
School of Art and Design, University of Hertfordshire
College Lane, Hatfield, AL10 9AB
UK
T 00 44 (0)1707 285341
F 00 44 (0)1707 285350
E <[log in to unmask]>
http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes/research/tvad/biggs1.html
For information about University research in art and design visit
http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes/research/
************************************************************
|