Klaus
On 2/20/06 7:27 PM, "Klaus Krippendorff" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote: (to the list in response to Keith)
> i like to have an example of when you are shifting between "is for" and "is
> about."
When there is an intention to do so! "Is for" implies the consideration of
action that requires an intention about something.
Klaus also said
> that something has been brought about aimlessly is impossible to
> (literally) demonstrate.
That pretty well states your position it seems to me. Anyone interested in
what an author has written in any serious way is likely to want to
understand the author/designer better, and that usually comes down to their
background, their situation and what motivated them to write as they did.
Literary or design criticism that looks no deeper than the work itself
dehumanizes it and leads to the kind of posturing you described below.
>when (lack of) purposes are stated, third parties, observers, self-absorbed
>theoreticians, and ideologues often dismiss what designers say and venture
>to explain in their own terms why something was designed, for example in
>terms of cognitive or cultural theories, but these explanations then have
>nothing to do with what drove the designer's work.
Best regards,
Chuck
|