On 8/14/05 11:19 PM, "Klaus Krippendorff" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> to
> me the difference is much more fundamental: it is between whether you hope
> to describe what exists in as general terms as possible (science) or whether
> you hope to change something in ways that would not come about by natural
> causes (design).
I misunderstood you to mean that design is generalized and science is
specific.
>
> you continue to say:
> Similarly, while good design involves those concerned with what is to be
> realized, a realized design is not a proposal but a concrete fact
> (expression) that can be responded to (and usually improved).
>
> which suggests that you conceptualize a design not as what a designer
> actually produces but what others make of what designers propose. i found
> it useful to distinguish between the two because designers can control and
> be held responsible only for what they create, not for what others make of
> their ideas.
I disagree with this abdication of responsibility for the way others use our
expressions. Most ethicists and scientists now seek a more forward looking
view of what might be done with what we do. Sustainable design is a good
example of this extended view of design responsibility.
> i have still to find a designer who produces products, "concrete facts that
> can be responded to" except in the form of sketches, drawings, writings, and
> presentations which reside in a phenomenal domain other than the products
> that they hope to come of them. i invite you to distinguish what a designer
> actually produces (a proposal, or specification if you wish) and what other
> people make of it (e.g. a physically measurable product). i found it useful
> to distinguish between the two phenomenal domains.
I view design as an intentionally guided teleological process that
ultimately ends with whatever is produced in response to the designer's
expressions. It does not stop when their "proposal" is adapted or produced
by others. It concludes when the intention motivating and directing the
design is realized (however that happens). This is critical to the
unviversal nature of designing as I understand it. A design expression is
also an ever changing adaptation of intention to context and vice versa (as
Jonas noted) until an intention is fulfilled in "the most advanced way yet
acceptable" (Raymond Lowey's MAYA priciple).
> another observation, by limiting design to the specification of "concrete
> facts that can be responded to" you are excluding the design of
> organizations, institutions, political campaigns, internet discussion
> groups, like our phd-design list, which are not physical objects but invite
> people's participation.
You misunderstand me here. To me every expression that can be apprehended by
another person is a concrete fact. It can be in any medium whatsoever
regarding any context. A spoken or written word is a concrete (even
physical) expression in my view and a social event or organization can only
be apprehended through its objective manifestations.
An interesting discussion.
Thanks,
Chuck
|