Lubomir,

I agree with you about a general problem on this list:

On Jan 2, 2005, at 4:50 PM, Lubomir S. Popov wrote:
> The problem with the discussions on this list is that there are too
> many
> people from very different design domains. Paradoxically, they are
> aware of
> their diversity and at the same time in the last moment before
> starting to
> type they forget about it and start thinking as if only their
> discipline is
> design and as if it is the standard for design.

but I plead not guilty to graphic design parochialism (at least in this
case.) Although Klaus says design "has to do with creating something
not due to natural causes," I still have to assume (until he says
otherwise) that he does not claim that to be an adequate description.
If he does believe that to be an adequate description I can agree that
there is no common thread that makes design a subject (or even a small
number of subjects.)

Rosan seemed to categorically reject cause and effect. What sort of
design is it that involves no intent to create an effect? I wouldn't
say that design was completely about causal relationships but I am
still quite mystified as to what sort of design Rosan studies where
causal relationships or the intent to create an effect is not relevant.

I also have carefully pointed out the range of possible understandings
of aptitudes. Rosan insisting that everything to do with talent is both
learned and a cultural construct because of what she "prefer[s] to
call" something and not explaining beyond that is just plain silly. Her
complete dismissal of *any* notion of talent or individual aptitude is
puzzling and seems counter to current understanding of human potential.

She stated to me "what is interesting for me in your response is that
you distinguish between cause and effect." I read that to mean a
general rejection of cause and effect and Klaus stating that he agreed
with her made me assume that he agreed with her.

She may have, in fact meant that cause and effect is all well and good
but there is no aspect of cause and effect when it comes to aptitudes
and performance. This is, of course, easy to show as bunk but in that
case her comment may not have been a *complete* dismissal of cause and
effect. Klaus may have been agreeing with that, in which case he was
correct in saying that he "never suggested to leave causal explanations
'completely' out of design considerations, as [I] read into [his]
response." If this is what they meant, I apologize to Rosan and Klaus
both for my wrong inference.

She may have even meant that cause and effect is all well and good when
it comes to aptitudes and performance but does not apply in any way to
aptitudes and performance in *any* aspect of design. I find that nearly
as puzzling as other interpretations of what she said.

Have I missed a possible interpretation?

My previous statements were quite clear that I did not believe that
"talent" was the singular predictor of design success of any sort. I
clearly rejected the notion of "talent" in the singular, suggesting
that there are a range of aptitudes that contribute to designers'
success and postulating that many may be teachable and/or learnable,
possibly to different degrees.

Unless I have further misunderstood, Rosan and Klaus both rejected this
as some sort of ethnocentrism and Klaus went on to indicate that I was
trapped in some sort of linguistically-based delusion and they both
agreed that aptitudes as I described them do not, indeed, exist in any
manner except the imaginations of egocentric Westerners or those they
have duped.

I agree that this is a harshly-stated summary of their comments but is
it inaccurate?

At 07:26 PM 1/2/2005 -0500, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
> the very fact that there are a multitude of definitions of design
> suggests
> that whatever we happen to agree on (if we do) is not a cause but a
> consensus.  consensus is a non-causal explanation.

I did not suggest that we collectively define design and see if it has
a causal nature. I did not suggest that all aspects of any sort of
design center on cause and effect thinking. I asked what definition of
design rejects cause and effect completely. If this is all irrelevant
to what you both said, I may be the only person who did not understand
but somehow I doubt it. For the benefit of the others who are as slow
as I am: What *are* you saying?

Gunnar

> to me, design has to do with creating something not due to natural
> causes.
> design processes, therefore, cannot be explained causally.  i am
> puzzled by
> your logic, finding someone's interest in design not compatible
> anything
> other than cause and effect thinking.  there is more to design
----------
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
536 South Catalina Street
Ventura California 93001-3625 USA

+1 805 667-2200
[log in to unmask]

http://www.gunnarswanson.com