chuck,
you had said:
>> Similarly, while good design involves those concerned with what is to be
>> realized, a realized design is not a proposal but a concrete fact
>> (expression) that can be responded to (and usually improved).
>
>i had responded:
> which suggests that you conceptualize a design not as what a designer
> actually produces but what others make of what designers propose. i found
> it useful to distinguish between the two because designers can control and
> be held responsible only for what they create, not for what others make of
> their ideas.
now you assert:
I disagree with this abdication of responsibility for the way others use our
expressions. Most ethicists and scientists now seek a more forward looking
view of what might be done with what we do. Sustainable design is a good
example of this extended view of design responsibility.
i would like to know the ground of your disagreement. is it on experiential
grounds or because you are committed to a particular ethical theory?
experientially, i have seen so many good designs that didn't go anywhere
because clients didn't like it. i have made proposals that were rejected or
adopted with modifications that almost didn't allow me to recognize what i
proposed, but nevertheless made a difference. recognizing that what
designers do is not necessarily what will happen is merely being realistic
(and perhaps less disappointed when one is not getting one's way). if your
disagreement amounts to a refusal to make the distinction that i made then
you wouldn't be able to recognize the opportunities and limitations of
design.
recognizing this distinction is important to me also because it acknowledges
that others with whom designers must work have their own agendas and say in
whether and how a design comes to fruition. i start to sense that your
opposition to what i said is colored by your commitment to psychological
explanations of design, (see the debate on intention) whereas i am thinking
of design more, but not exclusively, as a social and interactive phenomenon,
one that connects design to the culture its context and, above all, to the
many people that need to support a design in order to make it real.
if an ethical theory is the ground of your disagreement, let me start by
suggesting that ethical theories work only by consensus. if everyone agrees
that the job of the designers is to see their proposals realized exactly as
intended (see the idea of specifications), then indeed, designers can and
should take the full responsibility for the final product. i am not
abdicating the responsibility of designers for what they do, but i would not
hold designers responsible for what others do to their designs. designers
can argue, fight for their ideas, and they often do. but unless they are
given unlimited authority, they cannot succeed without consensus, and in
reality this is not easy to achieve.
let's be real and not appeal to a theory that is merely a proposal to be
considered for adoption -- like a design.
klaus
> i have still to find a designer who produces products, "concrete facts
that
> can be responded to" except in the form of sketches, drawings, writings,
and
> presentations which reside in a phenomenal domain other than the products
> that they hope to come of them. i invite you to distinguish what a
designer
> actually produces (a proposal, or specification if you wish) and what
other
> people make of it (e.g. a physically measurable product). i found it
useful
> to distinguish between the two phenomenal domains.
I view design as an intentionally guided teleological process that
ultimately ends with whatever is produced in response to the designer's
expressions. It does not stop when their "proposal" is adapted or produced
by others. It concludes when the intention motivating and directing the
design is realized (however that happens). This is critical to the
universal nature of designing as I understand it. A design expression is
also an ever changing adaptation of intention to context and vice versa (as
Jonas noted) until an intention is fulfilled in "the most advanced way yet
acceptable" (Raymond Lowey's MAYA priciple).
> another observation, by limiting design to the specification of "concrete
> facts that can be responded to" you are excluding the design of
> organizations, institutions, political campaigns, internet discussion
> groups, like our phd-design list, which are not physical objects but
invite
> people's participation.
You misunderstand me here. To me every expression that can be apprehended by
another person is a concrete fact. It can be in any medium whatsoever
regarding any context. A spoken or written word is a concrete (even
physical) expression in my view and a social event or organization can only
be apprehended through its objective manifestations.
An interesting discussion.
Thanks,
Chuck
|