I wrote:
In graphic design, it is the poster.
In industrial design, it varies on scale but it ranges from the cup to the
car. (Not alphabetically of course)
In architecture, it is the blueprint.
All of which find optimized distribution through the client and competition
prizes.
Note: This is not to say that these are the only artifacts, but they seem
to be the ones in which you are assigned/encouraged to design in order to
prove yourself as a member of the group.
Response to Terry who said: it is typically the representation of the
designed object (a 'blueprint'?) that is assessed rather than the cup or
car as finally manufactured.
I think you are correct, in the sense that a prototype of a poster/car/
etc. is the "representation" of what will become before the manufacturing
process. This perhaps points to the dividing line between design and
manufacturing or print production, in which the role of the designer
traditionally was less significant.
So I stand edified by the need to be explicit in terms of the "artifact"
being the poster prototype, the car prototype as the "blueprints" in the
same way as the architectural blueprint. This is why I love this group.
This is also more correct in the sense that it reifies the "rationalist"
bias I find among my design colleagues who are more interested in the
ideal represented in the prototype before all the constraints of
production.
Ken said I should clarify by what I mean by rationalist philosophical
tradition. Citing the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (I know it is
one step up from Wikipedia, but it is concise), the rationalist adopts
three claims:
"The Intuition/Deduction Thesis: Some propositions in a particular subject
area, S, are knowable by us by intuition alone; still others are knowable
by being deduced from intuited propositions...
he Innate Knowledge Thesis: We have knowledge of some truths in a
particular subject area, S, as part of our rational nature.[which is not
gained from experience.]
he Innate Concept Thesis: We have some of the concepts we employ in a
particular subject area, S, as part of our rational nature.[which is not
gained from experience.]"
So it is the "design prototype" that is the artifact of evidence in design
practice. This is interesting when I compare it to anthropology, where in
some ways the artifact as prototype seems true as well. The ethnographic
monograph, while a specific descriptive account of a society, is also a
prototype for a kind of society (hunter-gatherers, agriculturalists,
village peasants). Lucy's bones is the prototype for all species of the
Australopithecus afarensis.
But outside of the community of designers, is it not the manufactured car
or the exhibited poster that wins the awards, not the prototype?
As per Chris's comment that the artifact of design research can be
anything from "performances, aircraft and tables of data or the
understanding
of performance, constructional principles and aerodynamic knowledge that
represent the generalisable knowledge from their work." How do you all
(now speaking as an outsider/insider) evaluate each other's work?
As for distinctions between design research and design practice. I guess I
am making the distinction based on intentions of the activity and probably
my own biases of what defines research. Design research I think always
feeds eventually into the design process (i.e. practice). Sometimes it can
have a long durational period before application, which I see to be more
of the philosophical studies about design epistemology. Or it can quickly
feed into the design process, which could be some of the design methods
research. But the emphasis on the understanding (self-reflexivity) of
epistemology or methods distinguishes design research from design practice
for me. Thus while design practice can have that self-reflexivity, the
pragmatic considerations of time, budget, and client needs make that
understanding not core to the task at hand, which is to develop a
"successful" product. To be clear, many good designers conduct design
research to ensure a successful product, but others don't have to because
depth of understanding is not a requirement for success.
Hope this clarifies.
Dori
References:
Markie, Peter, "Rationalism vs. Empiricism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Fall 2004 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2004/entries/rationalism-empiricism/>.
|