Ken and others
I see these as a process used by design research and design practice. I am
focusing on the process rather than motives or intentions although they are
hard to separate. The reasons for doing something - one¹s aims, acts or
plans are heavily influenced by external variables i.e. environment and
stakeholders. Maybe there is less influence from these variables in
opportunistic activities, but they still exist.
How about losing ŒC¹ all together in this model, what about just an ŒA¹ and
ŒB¹
A = Solving problems
B = Opportunistic activities (perceived or seeking opportunities / among
existing alternative or not)
Both ŒA¹ and ŒB¹ include the most of ŒC¹Š creating, creating alternatives
to what exist, aimless play..etc
I would then place B¹s activities first above A¹s as these activities are
Œusually¹ (not always) introduces the problem that has to be solved.
A = Opportunistic activities
(perceived or seeking opportunities / among existing alternative or not)
B = Solving problems
I believe success in ŒA¹ and ŒB¹ is based on the persons ability to see
relationships that others fail to see that are perceived to be relevant or
irrelevant (different) by many. Be it directed, purposeful or not, in
practice or in research, be it a designer or not.
Both ŒA¹ and ŒB¹ engage in opportunistic and problem solving activities,
experimentation with technology, create alternatives to what already exists
and what doesn¹t, both can be restless, fun and incorporate aimless play.
Problem solving ŒB¹ can sometimes highlight opportunities. Also
Opportunistic ŒA¹ usually needs problem solving ŒB¹ activities for it to be
realised.
I think the key differences is ŒA¹ sets out to be an envisioning process
from the start, where ŒB¹ is a process that attempts to solve the envisioned
problem or sometimes to define it. At a very basic level the designer can
start the project either from ŒA¹ or ŒB¹, but ŒA¹ and ŒB¹ cannot exist
without each other if the idea is to materialise.
Ken said
>> An entailment is a necessary consequence. I can't see that creating
>> entails NOT playing.
I have to agree with Ken, play is an integral part of creating. Play could
mean Œplaying with ideas¹ a cognitive activity. One that is not solely used
by designers but everyone that is involved in envisioning or the solving of
envisioned problems.
Play suggests engagement in activity for enjoyment and recreation rather
than a serious or practical purpose... but surely that¹s half of designs
appeal as discipline for many?
I believe design has evolved beyond simply solving problems, more than often
opportunities don¹t have a questions, only a creative answers. So does
design research support the process needs of ŒB¹ more than ŒA¹?
Obviously not a rationalist, don¹t feel apart of an empire, not yelling just
preliminary thoughts and struggling ideas from experience, observations and
emotions.
In need of some input from an elder.
Ward regards from Finland
Ian
----------------------------------------
Ian Järvelä-Rooney
Lecturer of Packaging Design
Lahti Institute of Design
Lahti University of Applied Sciences
Finland
+358 4041 360 77
email: [log in to unmask]
On 18/2/06 11:28, "Ken Friedman" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Klaus,
>
> Again, I'll have to return on this except for a short clarification.
> Something is clear
> here that was not clear before.
>
> Rosan referred to you, but she didn't quote you. She stated the
> terms. Since she
> brought this forward in the thread, I used her statement. (According to Rosan,
> your post appeared on the list last year. You sent nearly 150 posts
> to the list in
> 2005. It's hard to locate one post among 150 without a specific reference.)
>
> I have your book, but I've only read it once, last year, so I've got
> to apologize
> for my faulty memory. I'm not sure when you quoted your book -- I don't
> recall a quote on this issue, at least not since February 8 when Rosan posted
> the "A, B, C" post that elicited my reply.
>
> Moving beyond the alphabet soup, I'd like to suggest that you and Rosan are
> saying two different things.
>
> Rosan's A, B, C is ambiguous on a point you clarify. Rosan wrote:
>
> --snip--
>
> A. engage in solving problems (problem defining implied).
> B. seek new opportunities (experiment with new technology, for example)
> C. create alternatives to what exists (quite restlessly, perhaps just
> for fun, not necessarily making something better)
>
> --snip--
>
> I suggest that this means:
>
> A = 1. Solving problems.
> B = 2. Seeking opportunities among existing alternatives.
> C = 3. Creating alternatives to what exists.
>
> Now you offer a more precise statement. I read your statement as:
>
> A = Solving problems.
> B = Perceiving opportunities.
> C = Aimless play.
>
> This is clearly different than what I wrote. And it is different to Rosan's
> A, B, C.
>
> At this point, I request that you refrain from accusing me of rationalism
> and misstating your terms. You only now stated them. I think you did,
> indeed, misread an entailment where I intended none. Perhaps this is
> because I failed to read your clear distinction in Rosan's ambiguous
> statement. The statement "create alternatives to what exists (quite
> restlessly, perhaps just for fun, not necessarily making something better)"
> allows for BOTH aimless play AND purposeful creation. My restatement
> allows both. Your statement does not allow both. You focus clearly on
> aimless play. Rosan did not. Rosan invited you to amend or correct her
> statements. You didn't. I quoted Rosan. I don't blame you for my misreading
> of your intentions. I ask that you do not blame me for misreading you when,
> in fact, I was reading what Rosan explicitly wrote.
>
> Now if we can move on, I think your clarification raises interesting
> issues. This suggests a fruitful distinction among 5 issues.
>
> 1. Solving problems
> 2. Seeking opportunities among existing alternatives
> 3. Perceiving opportunities
> 4. Creating
> 5. Aimless play
>
> I know that you reject theories, but since you allow distinctions and
> descriptions, I'll offer them:
>
> 1. Solving problems -- directed and purposeful
> 2. Seeking opportunities among existing alternatives -- directed and
> purposeful
> 3. Perceiving opportunities -- less directed but possibly purposeful
> 4. Creating -- sometimes directed, sometimes not, possibly
> purposeful, possibly not
> 5. Aimless play -- not directed, not purposeful
>
> This is not a full model, but a preliminary thought. Putting these
> three sets of
> statements together offers interesting possibilities
>
> I realize that my urge to create models bothers you, but I'd suggest that you,
> too, create models when you describe things, especially when you state that
> something "is" so, as you seem to do here.
>
> I will return later to struggle with a model.
>
> Two short comments on language before I leave. First, "play" is also an
> action verb. Second, the business of entailments should be clear in my
> careful set of descriptions. I'm not saying all of these approaches work in
> any specific order, nor that they entail any sequence. I say they are all
> useful approaches, and I observe that they overlap -- purposeful and
> purposeless both -- in design, in research, and in life.
>
> Consider the example you gave in your prior post:
>
> --snip--
>
> when i
> teach industrial design students, i often ask them to collect examples of
> artifacts that are functionally identical but different in shape, so
> students come with a collection of spoons, analogue wrist watches, or
> headlight of cars. this exercise is to demonstrate (a) the variations that
> designers introduce into their designs -- without reference to purposes or
> improvements -- and (b) how such inherently meaningless variations become
> quickly meaningful in social interactions among users and stakeholders.
>
> --snip--
>
> This may demonstrate a wealth of playful or purposeless variation. It
> may also demonstrate varieties of purposeful play. The collection itself
> tells you nothing about the intentions or working processes of the designers.
> Users and stakeholders create meaning, but this says nothing about designer
> intentions. When we speak of design process or research process, we speak
> of intentions or behaviors by those who design or research.
>
> As I see it, in many projects -- from the trivial to the major -- those who
> make them move from problem solving to play, often many times. Or
> sometimes they move from play to problem solving. Or sometimes
> they move from play to perceiving opportunities. Or sometimes ....
>
> Yours,
>
> Ken
|
