I think i may have got your point.
But do you think that what you describe as ambiguity is part of the job
of the maker?
Isn't it rather something the "user" discovers / imposes upon the
artefact?
No matter how "clear" your design of a "real world" artefact appears -
there will always be some possibility for interesting "unintended use".
Whether this ambiguity is intended or not.
You could also create an ambiguous object that has no specific use at
all, people could compete in discovering what it might be used for.
I guess students must have done this, but i have no example.
What do you mean by providing "more then necessary"?
That design has moved on from "creating intelligent & working things"
to giving "products a facelift" or having to create a product with a
distinct style? There is also the more "arty" aspect of it, that the
designer tries to create an unmistakable style?
A formalism.
Recently i have been to the "Cooper-Hewitt Museum", at an exhibition of
furniture created from and with very diverse intentions and
backgrounds.
Some were from artists that tried to create furniture for themselves.
Some other pieces were from designers that once in a while tried to
create something "arty" and unusable. Each piece could be seen as a
(political) statement.
It was a very intriguing exhibition. Of course it was impossible to
tell which piece originated from which background.
What i want to stress is that from my point of view it is difficult to
see opportunism in "real" design.
One has to solve a problem and there are a many different solutions.
All with their different benefits and drawbacks.
You balance these against each other - and make a decision.
Or what have i missed?
best, Michael
On Jan 15, 2005, at 17:27, Ranulph Glanville wrote:
> The point is not about good and bad design: that's a matter of value
> judgement, and the valuing has changed radically over the last 50 years
> (I was taught that post-rationalisation was a sin, whereas I have come
> to believe that post-rationalisation is a necessity—the unforgiveably
> bad has become the essential good).
>
> What I was referring to has to do with the old modernist dictum that
> form follows function, whereas it's the experience of each of us that
> function often follows form. Affordance is one word, functional
> specificity is another (well, two!)—it's not really important which we
> use. I think my preference is ambiguity. What is important, I believe,
> is that we understand the centrality of opportunism in design, the need
> to provide more than the necessary (ie, generosity) and that, while
> there are usually functions to be accommodated, design is not really
> about that. We assume the functions will somehow be accommodated.
> Design lies, mainly, in the rest. This is why I mentioned the modernist
> dictum, and it relates to what can and cannot be specified, and what
> specification might be for.
>
> What specification might be for is, of course, concerned with
> intention.
>
> ________________________________________________________
>
> Ranulph Glanville
> CybernEthics Research
> 52 Lawrence Road, Southsea, Hants, PO5 1NY, UK
> tel +44 (0) 23 92 73 77 79
> fax +44 (0) 23 92 79 66 17
>
|