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.
It is necessary to consider these design processes that may not look
like traditional design because they form the majority of design
processes, and produce the majority of designs.
In order to have a real influence in the world, the field of design
must come to terms with this reality, and not insist on restricting its
interest to only those activities it is currently engaged in, those
that are already understood and accepted as "design processes", and
that have departments in design universities.
My interest in this is not a mainly theoretical abstract one. I see
that theory of this must be developed in order to move forward in the
practice, and that is why I am also interested in linking intentional
design with evolution. Since evolution is the most important, the
fundamental design process (in my mind), maybe we can learn something
from it, to help us design better.
Also, all our designs will always eventually live or die within an
evolutionary context in society. Maybe we should understand what that
is. Our designs will be complemented by others and our intentional
design process by other less clearly intentional design processes. How
can we collaborate with these and avoid wasting our resources, and give
our designs a successful evolutionary future? ETC.
A good starting point for this discussion is to remember that the word
design is both a verb and a noun. Most discussions in our field and on
this list about design theory focus on the verb - the activity of the
designer. To me, the outcomes are actually more important. It is not
the designer that changes the world as much as the designs, the
outcomes that do it. A designer without outcomes can not do much.
If we study the influence of the outcomes, the designs (in the noun
sense), in the world, how the designs work and why they are successful,
and want a realistic picture that can help us to design better, we can
not ignore those designs that did not come from a "proper design
process".
These considerations are especially important in design that involves
digital systems. However, I understand that for many that deal with
other fields of design, they seem too far out or irrelevant. But design
is evolving, and in our area, which I choose to call "digital design",
these kinds of issues are highly relevant.
best, kh
....
On 7.1.2005, at 01:41, Hoffmann, Oliver - HOFOY001 wrote:
> Kari-Hans,
>
> Would you accept the view that some processes show properties of design
> processes, even if these processes are not design processes in the
> original sense of "designing"?
>
> :) Oliver
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
> related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of Kari-Hans Kommonen
> Sent: Wednesday, 5 January 2005 10:54 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Design and intention (was: Re: Nature and nurture in
> education)
>
> The focus of this question (relationship between design and evolution,
> as discussed in Klaus' message) is in intention. Some people insist
> that design is always based on intention. If there is no intention,
> there is no design, they say.
>
> Personally, I disagree with this necessity of intention. There are many
> designs that were produced by design processes where specific
> intentions of some designer do not explain the outcome. I believe that
> we miss the big picture and the true context of design if we do not
> consider these processes as design processes.
>
> When one holds this point of view, evolution is also a design process.
>
> I see Dawkins' statement as a comment to the "intelligent design"
> protagonists, who claim that evolution could not have produced the
> designs attributed to it, which then implies that there must have been
> an intelligent intentional designer who produced those designs, i.e.
> God. According to what Dawkins says, he also seems to subscribe to the
> view that design always requires intention. However, another way to say
> what he seems to be telling the intelligent design community would be
> that "intention comes later in the universe", and that evolution is
> capable of designing without intention.
>
> cheers, kari-hans
|