I will second Jonas. to me, this 'design for a (specified) purpose' view is a received view. interesting perspectives and opportunities to advance the field come when we challenge it.
David (Sless) once said, one of designers' jobs is to change the client's brief (to the better). and Ranulph (Glanville) among others said that we could only fully understand the problem AFTER the solution was produced. and John Dewey taught us much about the volatile relationship between means and end. Chris (Rust) and his colleagues recent work, for example, support these.
rosan
----- Original Nachricht ----
Von: Wolfgang Jonas <[log in to unmask]>
An: [log in to unmask]
Datum: 16.08.2005 09:57
Betreff: Re: Problem, purpose, teleology
> Dear Ken,
>
> this problem -> solution view of designing is much too idealized,
> simplified, even poor, in my opinion. It neglects the whole concept
> of designing as a process of inquiry / exploration / knowledge
> production. Or the more trivial issue of finding new "problems" to be
> solved my means of available new technologies (as common in
> marketing).
>
> One of my first texts in the design community in the early 90s dealt
> with this question:
>
> "Design as problem-solving? Or: Here is the solution - what was the
> problem?" Design Studies Vol 14 No 2, April 1993.
>
> Best,
>
> Jonas
>
> __________
>
>
> At 1:08 Uhr +0200 16.08.2005, Ken Friedman wrote:
> >Dear All,
> >
> >The issue of purpose as the stimulus for most design activity was
> >stated nicely in a book by the late Jens Bernsen, founding director
> >of the Danish Design Center. The title of Bernsen's book suggests a
> >frame for the design inquiry: The problem comes first. Solving a
> >problem is a purpose. Bernsen (1986: 10) describes design as
> >"translating a purpose into a physical form or tool." Allowing for
> >the fact that Jens began his career in an era when design generally
> >involved physical things, this description moves into the era of
> >designing process and non-physical forms or tools equally well.
> >
> >Designed artifacts and natural artifacts have much in common, but
> >designed artifacts are, finally, the result of a process of
> >conscious evolution. Fuller (1981: 229-231) described design as the
> >difference between two kinds of evolution, class-one evolution and
> >class-two evolution. Class-two evolution involves events that result
> >from human initiatives or the political changes that come about as
> >human artifacts change our environment.
> >
> >Bernsen describes solutions in nature and design that "vary in
> >purpose and are adapted to different environments." He writes that
> >we use many of the same kinds of terms of describe the results of
> >design and evolution, including purpose, economy of manufacturing
> >and construction, beauty, interaction with the user, relationship to
> >the environment.
> >
> >"The fact that the designs of nature and the designs of man can be
> >analyzed according to a common set of criteria," writes Bernsen
> >(1986: 10) "stems from the fact that they have a basic property in
> >common: they are solutions to a problem."
> >
> >Using a slightly different vocabulary, the problem determines
> >purpose or teleology.
> >
> >Yours,
> >
> >Ken
> >
> >
> >Reference
> >
> >Bernsen, Jens. 1986. Design. The Problem Comes First. Copenhagen:
> >Danish Design Council.
> >
> >Fuller, Buckminster. 1981. Critical Path. New York: St. Martin's Press.
> >
> >--
> >
> >Ken Friedman
> >Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
> >Department of Communication, Culture, and Language
> >Norwegian School of Management
> >
> >Design Research Center
> >Denmark's Design School
> >
> >email: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> --
Machen Sie aus 14 Cent spielend bis zu 100 Euro!
Die neue Gaming-Area von Arcor - über 50 Onlinespiele im Angebot.
http://www.arcor.de/rd/emf-gaming-1
|