Dear Jonas ( and Ken, Rosan et all....)
Thank you for sharing the full text of the 10 questions from JCJ.
The current debate on the scientific nature of design is stimulating,
to say the least.
I am enthused to throw a "spanner in the works" and here it is quoted
below from my notes at a meeting at the IDC, Mumbai which I attended
over the weekend.
I quote....
....The favorite rant thing is true, and in fact I believe Rs 60,000
crores is spent on science and technology in India each year (my
figures) and only about 30 to 50 crores is spent on design and we can
see that it is getting us much progress with all the pollution and
other fallouts that seem possible to solve if we spend more on "better"
science as one eminent scientist told me recently. Any takers.
However, my major submission at the IDC interaction was that the
history of humankind may need to be rewritten from the design
perspective as oposed to the scientific perspective, and I proposed the
following ages of man (women included here) or better still, humankind,
in the form of the revolutions of design that have shaped us through
the ages from pre-history to the present. These are indeed "Design
Revolutions", if we use the definition of "Design" to be "an
intentional thought and action that produces value".
To be brief I am listing below my thumbnail notes from the meeting that
I used to speak (extempore) from (the master video or audio may have
all the details and the ahems and the haws that I used to pass from one
point to the next). I would like a copy of the tapes if you can convert
them to digital form......and share...Ravi are you listening?
Quote from my handwritten notes....
"Design Revolutions of Humankind" or "Human Revolutions of Design" ( a
possible title for a future book on the history of design
© 2006 M P Ranjan) (possible chapterization below).
Pre-History
1. Hunter / Gatherer / Caveman
The Axe & Fire Revolution
2. Nomadic Culture to Settled Agriculture
The Wheel Revolution - Social Revolution
3. Stone Age to Bronze Age
The Craft Tech Revolution
(see) Levi Strauss (for the trigger) (Structural Anthropology 2 - Race
and History - last chapter in the book)
Ancient to Recorded History
4. Exploring the Intellect
From the Greeks to (modern) Europe
Egypt, India, Americas {Maya}
The Science Revolution
(from the mystic to the rational thought and formal logic)
5. Technology & Industry & Application of Science
The Industrial and Technological Revolution
Contermporary to the Future (History)
6. Hi-Tech & Information Tech - Age of Computing
The Information (age) / Revolution
(from Bits to Bytes)
7. Content and Databases - Search and Communication
The Knowledge Revolution
8. Innovation Integration and Creativity
The Creative Revolution (The Design Revolution ?)
New Economics - The Value of One
(Future of History ??)
9. ?? One!!! ......
end of notes and end of quote
Perhaps humankind will rediscover Design in the near future and we will
place it in the place of the "Red dot" that Doxiodes had spoken about
when I heard him in Bombay in the early Seventies at a lecture in the
Tata Auditorium when I accompanied Sudha Nadkarni and his students. The
"Red Dots" (the crazies) on his slides were surrounded by many "Blue
Dots" (the normals) in his lectutre on social forms of cities and when
these grew many "Red Dots" from the villages combine to become cities
many "Red Dots" get together and start to change the "Blues" to shades
of "Purple"....read about "Constantinos Alexander Doxiadis's 'Ekistics'
and search Google, I would love to rediscover the lecture....This
happened when I was a student trainee at Godrej and I used to escape to
the IDC in the pretext of making plaster models (of Cupboard Handles)
that Godrej did not have handy (plaster of paris) at that time....
Design is at the heart of innovation and human progress and it needs to
be better funded in India (and elsewhere?) !! What do you think?
With warm regards (sorry no abstracts included here)
M P Ranjan
from my office at NID
(with reading from my notes by Aratrik Devvarman who was discussing
Levi Strauss and Conrans new book "Designers on Design" which I got
from Mumbai Airport the day before, however it is a treatise on "Design
as Style" and no Indians are included there, thank heavens for that)
21 February 2006 at 1.20 am IST
Prof M P Ranjan
Faculty of Design
Head, NID Centre for Bamboo Applications
Faculty Member on Governing Council (2003 - 2005)
National Institute of Design
Paldi
Ahmedabad 380 007 India
Tel: (off) 91 79 26623692 ext 1090 (changed in January 2006)
Tel: (res) 91 79 26610054
Fax: 91 79 26605242
email: [log in to unmask]
web site: http://homepage.mac.com/ranjanmp/
On 20-Feb-06, at 3:11 AM, Wolfgang Jonas wrote:
> Ian,
>
> good idea to reduce things to A and B. Thriftiness is always good for
> clarity.
>
> So much has been said about this issue by brilliant people.
>
> See for example:
>
> Russell L. Ackoff
> The Art of Problem Solving
> Accompanied by Ackoff´s Fables
> John Wiley & Sons, New York 1978
>
> He makes the distinction between reactive and proactive
> problem-solving:
> reactive problem solving: we walk into the future, facing the problems
> of the past
> proactive problem solving: we walk into the future, facing what we want
>
>
> Or see
> Herbert A. Simon
> The Sciences of the Artificial
> MIT Press, 1996
>
> Chapter 6
> p 164:
> "Design as Valued Activity
> ... Designing is a kind of mental window shopping. Purchases do not
> have to be made to get pleasure from it.
> One of the charges sometimes laid against modern science and
> technology is that if we know how to do something, we cannot resist
> doing it. While one can think of counterexamples, the claim has some
> measure of truth. One can envisage a future, however, in which our
> main interest in both science and design will lie in what they teach
> us about the world and not in what they allow us to do to the world.
> Design like science is a tool for understanding as well as for
> acting."
>
>
> Best,
>
> Jonas
>
> __________
>
>
> At 21.49 Uhr +0200 19/02/2006, Ian Rooney wrote:
>> 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 - one's 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 'C' all together in this model, what about just an
>> 'A' and
>> 'B'
>>
>> A = Solving problems
>> B = Opportunistic activities (perceived or seeking opportunities /
>> among
>> existing alternative or not)
>>
>>
>> Both 'A' and 'B' include the most of 'C'Š creating, creating
>> alternatives
>> to what exist, aimless play..etc
>>
>>
>> I would then place B's activities first above A's as these
>> activities are
>> 'usually' (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 'A' and 'B' 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 'A' and 'B' engage in opportunistic and problem solving
>> activities,
>> experimentation with technology, create alternatives to what already
>> exists
>> and what doesn't, both can be restless, fun and incorporate aimless
>> play.
>>
>> Problem solving 'B' can sometimes highlight opportunities. Also
>> Opportunistic 'A' usually needs problem solving 'B' activities for
>> it to be
>> realised.
>>
>> I think the key differences is 'A' sets out to be an envisioning
>> process
>> from the start, where 'B' 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 'A' or 'B', but 'A' and 'B' 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 'playing with ideas' 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 that's half of
>> designs
>> appeal as discipline for many?
>>
>> I believe design has evolved beyond simply solving problems, more
>> than often
>> opportunities don't have a questions, only a creative answers. So
>> doesdesign research support the process needs of 'B' more than 'A'?
>>
>> Obviously not a rationalist, don't 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 DesignLahti 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
|
