Dear Jerry and Chuck,
As I read it, these are a restatement of a single
concept that has been around since the early 60s
at least.
One of the earliest and perhaps most succinct
versions was,
'move from concrete to abstract and back'
The original perspectives on this heuristic had
the subtlety you are outlining plus more because
it also applies within mathematical realms. The
aim at that time was to produce simple universally
useful mnemonics to assist designers in improving
design practices.
From what I remember, as 'rules of thumb
for practice' these were not themselves seen as
design theory. They were viewed as a consequence of
design research rather than part of design research.
Best wishes,
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerome Diethelm
Sent: 23/11/2005 2:39 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Distinguishing design from art-and-design
Dear Chuck,
Re:
“Ideas travel: places resonate.”
To that wonderful quote I would echo your list of methods, attitudes, and skills that travel with ideas and do not resonate until they are situated.
M P Ranjan’s choice of “opportunity” as a preferred aperture into design situations in India is a good example of this insight. Problem, he tells us, only tends to add unwanted weight to situations and increase inertia. Problem, to me in a completely different circumstance, remains of interest because of an important root meaning: Gk = problema: anything thrown forward. Thrown forward where? Where else but in the mind for selective advantage, resolution, disposition and designing?
Louis Kahn spoke of “making the intangible tangible so that it can become intangible again.” Now we can quote you about making the situated transferable so that it can become situated again. Another good reason to avoid being too quick about narrowing our vocabulary of designing or putting all our eggs in one metaphoric basket.
Warm regards,
Jerry
|