Hi Terry,

You are right re: the rhetoric ...which is why I normally prefer to 'show'
my ideas through concept diagrams or maps that demonstrate schematically
what I am trying to say( when talking to colleagues and students), that have
come out here in somewhat 'casual' terms and words, and if this is how it
sounds, my apologies.
... but I do not think that I am using 'tautalogical' logic, as you say. I
am not trying to suggest 'this' or 'that'; rather, I am ( through this
discussion) trying to understand and reconcile two seemingly polarized ways
that Fil suggested we see 'design', and I do suggest that 'design' does have
inter-related yet intuitive and simultaneously complex processes that 'act'
at different times.

Sooooo....to respond to your message herein:
First, I do mean the 'design process' and not 'some process', so I suppose
the key is how to clearly present this 'process' in words, when it is not
something easy to define or present through narrative alone. In my
experiences doing design as a practitioner and also teaching it to students,
I do not see 'some process' because what we do as designers is more specific
than that ( including several elements such as aesthetics and intent that
are difficult to pinpoint or describe- I have also used terms such as
'eureka moment' - how do you scientize that? ). What this 'design process'
is in more defined written terms I do not yet 'know' ( other than what I
have tried to describe in my own thesis and subsequent research work) as I
am still working on this!! But I am developing a schematic diagram that
explores these iterative relationships.

I suppose that I do suggest that design is by definition a 'process' rather
than a 'thing', and I am trying to discuss and situate the aspects of the
'design process' that we tend to polarize into one or another 'definition'
as parts of a more complex whole. One of my personal frustrations with
design theory is our tendancy to try and pigeon-hole design as 'this' or
'that' , rather than examine all of the parts together as a dynamic series
of iterative processes that do work together in a systematic way, and that
are then judged and chosen by the designer ( and/or other 'actors' or
'players' ) to be out into practice in the realization of some type of
solution. Here is where my writing seems less clear, but I do believe we
must explore what design actually 'is'....this iterative, complex and yes,
partly intuitive  process with an evaluative component that either succeeds,
or not, or changes the way that we live for the better?!( or not...) This
aspect of design theory is one that I grapple with - how best to put this
relationship into words.....

I do agree on your point re: two epistemologically separate concepts ( I
position both internal and external design acts as internal/personal and
external/social in my doctoral thesis...).

On your last point:
 «If these internal and external aspects of design activity are both lumped
together, then it seems to become very difficult in language (especially
with the poor quality of definitions and concepts in the design field) to
develop sensible coherent theory.»

I agree with you wholeheartedly that these should not be, as you say 'lumped
together'. But I do wonder if they are nevertheless somehow inter-related,
and if so, how? eventually what we do as a design activity internally does
become an external process, and may move back again into an internal design
activity, don't you think?

I have to mull this one over a bit more....
thanks,
Tiiu





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Terence Love" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: Design


Dear Tiiu,

Thanks for your message. Reading between the lines, in general I think we go
along similar tracks about design and design theory except for differences
with rhetoric.
It feels important to me to avoid the tautology of saying "Design is..."
then "because this is so then....." and then "therefore this means that
design is... (reinforcing the starting definition on the basis of
tautological logic). I've found if 'dummy words' are substituted for things
we haven't actually defined at the starting point then any mess starts to
become apparent,  and it becomes obvious that we need to choose definitions
of key terms (like 'design') as to whether they are well suited to making
good theory.

For example. if your first sentence is changed in this way it still makes
good unambigous sense - and without presuming a definition of design. I.e.

'There is an interesting systematic means by which "SOME PROCESS" occurs
that includes moving from what I would term the "known" ( planned elements,
intent, knowledge, systems applications) into the "unknown" ( intuitive,
artistic creativity, the <to-be-designed> aspects that we cannot "know") and
back again...this is at once "systematic" but also requires a certain amount
of suspension( of rational mind) during the process.

At that point, however,  it is not then obvious that your next sentence
follows or is related in terms of any logical argument i.e

"...design , to provide the "making a plan" a solution), must also be
evaluated( or judged) in its capacity to provide the "right" means to an end
( the outcome of the design problem or issue at hand), which we can try to
predict but we cannot always know - witness the recent landing of the
shuttle Discovery."

What happened in the original was that the word 'design' (with a very
'flexible' definition) is used as the rhetoric tool to elide or segue
between two relatively unrelated ideas where the underlying logic is
unconnected.

I agree with you about the usefulness of using a process view on design
activities. In doing this, I've found there are many advantages to separate
the idea of design into two epistemologically distinct concepts:
* Design activity that happens inside someone via thoughts, feelings,
emotions etc (can be very short time or over a  longer time) and
* Design processes external to individuals that contain all sorts of other
activities alongside at least one incident of the internal human design
activity (the marker that makes it useful to classify it as  _design_
process rather than some other kind of process)

If these internal and external aspects of design activity are both lumped
together, then it seems to become very difficult in language (especially
with the poor quality of definitions and concepts in the design field) to
develop sensible coherent theory.

Best wishes,
Terry