Dear Erik
Based on what you said below, isn't that more appropriate to charactarize
"The Design Way" as a 'scenario', 'narrative', 'story', or even a 'design'
of design...rather than seeing it as a philosophy of design ....
'philosophy' is such a loaded word.
For me, the criticisms of De Vries on "The Design Way" (or my questions)
could be relaxed or even rendered irrelevant if we see "The Design Way" not
as a philosophy, but as a truly 'design' discourse...a discourse that is
fresh, energizing, and complementary to other discourses ...not only in
what it says but also the approach it takes to say it.
The most important of what you said below, for me, is "to find new ways of
thinking that might help and support designers"...this is such a different
approach (or 'intention') to discourse that i would not like to call it a
philosophy. It is a very brave 'design' disourse that comes out from Design
Research.
It is extremely difficult to begin a different FORM of discourse (and to
legitimize it) and there are still much work to do...but we should be proud
of "The Design Way". What do you think?
Rosan
Erik Stolterman wrote:
> Once again we get back to intention. I am mostly interested in
> philosophy of design as a way to find new ways of thinking that might
> help and support designers (this is the approach in "The Design
> Way"). This means a very different kind of epistemology, it is closer
> to the pragmatist tradition and Dewey (where I personally believe the
> most "designerly" philosophical grounding can be found). But it still
> has to be transformed into a philosophy of design (like the works of
> Donald Schon, Larry Hickman and "The Design Way"). There is always
> the other intention, to develop and foster some true philosophical
> foundations in close relation to other fields of philosophy, i.e. the
> intention is to explore and develop the field of philosophical
> thinking (this is not the intention of "The Design Way"), and should
> (in most cases) be handed over to professional philosophers.
|