dear klaus and others
thanks for an engaging discussion.
since it is an empirical description, have you attempted an explanation? (just
curious).
speaking from my own educational experience in design, i think i have been
taught (indoctrinated) to work/think mostly in mode (a), and partly in (b). but
i might say (c) would be foreign, as we were supposed to do things for a
purpose, you see. (i wonder what others' experiences were).
i am really glad you have brought (c) up because it is in line with the
conclusions that i have drawn in my dissertation...design is independent from
purpose, and purpose (can) come after design.
thanks again. rosan
Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
> rosan,
>
> i didn't intend (a). (b). and (c) to be normative, merely an empirical
> description of what i know designers like to do. in my experiences,
>
> i know a lot of designers who are motivated by complaints, their own and
> that of others, clients' problems, for example. this is (a)
>
> i also know a lot of designers who sense opportunities (new materials, new
> technologies, new practices) or imagine desirable futures (without
> necessarily seeing a problem in the present) and search for ways to get
> there. this is (b)
>
> finally, i know a lot of designers who like to introduce change for its own
> sake, changing the color of something, making something bigger -- not
> necessarily because it is better but because it is different. this is (c).
> from a bird's eye perspective on technology, this attitude introduces random
> variation that may later survive or not depending on whether it catches on.
> many innovations are the result of this restlessness without a purpose.
> poetry is an endless variation of forms without obvious purposes but of
> tremendous consequence for language and culture
>
> klaus
|