Hi Terry

My feeling is that the idea of design as part of a legal contract is useful in political economic terms. I think Klaus is right when he says the context is important to definitions. I was thinking about situations like fashion design, in which creative ideas are expected to be fully converted to design (as in a collection) before coming under contract, and in which the designer him/herself has to bear the costs of the design process before entering the market.  It seems to me the 'creative economy' discourse can leave the design aspect unspoken, rather than valuing it more. Creativity + manufacture = commercial product (somehow!)

Thinking about design as contract helps understand the situation. For instance, if we are interested in making design a highly-valued commodity, then we might represent creativity as having a use value that only exists “in potentia” -  ie “any labor-product has a value and a use value, and if it is traded as a commodity in markets, it additionally has an exchange value, most often expressed as a money-price” (wikipedia).  In political economic terms then, a design can be thought of as the product of creative labour, which has an exchange value and becomes subject to contract when traded in markets.

Creative labour might seem to be more visible and differentiated in a creative economy, but this doesn't mean that the exchange value of designing will increase. This is because the market success of a design may not actually be based in its use value, but in the margin the designer can make on the exchange – which is more likely to be determined by how successful s/he is in shaping and deploying the social relations of creativity.

Paradoxically, in this situation, the more 'exchange value' creative labour attains, the less design is valued. It's difficult to get creative industry research money for design when the design process is made invisible.

Of course,  this is not the only way to look at it.

Cheers,
Amanda

________________________________________
From: Terence Love [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, 25 May 2008 7:06 p.m.
To: Bill, Amanda; 'Klaus Krippendorff'; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Design - Innovation

Dear Klaus and Amanda,

Thank you for your messages. I feel seeing  'design as an element of a legal
contract' offers benefits in relation to issues you both raise.

Klaus, thank you for your comments. I interpreted Lars' request as him
asking for some guidance in terms of clarifying which definitions of design
and innovation distinguished between them and offered conceptually
advantages. That is, I assumed Lars' focus was in the realm of choosing
definitions of the terms so that they could be used unambiguously in
theoretical discussions. I appreciate that you would prefer to view things
in hindsight and define the terms after seeing how people use them. I'd
prefer to identify which ways of using terms offer more benefit earlier in
the game.

Looking at your message, it is obvious that viewing  'design as an element
of a legal contract'  offers the immediate benefit of distinguishing between
'ideas' (as you say 'speaking of ideas to a client')  and the design that is
firmed up and will go to manufacture. Here I'm thinking of, for example,
graphic design  where a designer might sketch out many ideas for a client,
yet it is the 'design' which contains all that information necessary for a
printer to produce the real world items. Until that point they are simply
incomplete idea sketches. At that point at which the design is used it's
role is of instructions as part of a legally binding contract. That's what
differentiates if from ideas, concept sketches etc.

Amanda, on a slightly different tack, which I feel might fit with your issue
with turning 'creativity' into a design, is the idea that things can exist
'in potentia'. For example, if I have a $50 note in my pocket, its value as
money  exists 'in potentia' until I actually exchange it for something (i.e.
use it in a contract). Similarly, a design can exist as complete set of
instructions for (say) printing a poster (as distinct from an 'idea' or
'sketch' of the  graphics to be used on that poster) without actually at
that moment being part of a contract. This fits with your idea  of an extra
step to convert creative ideas into a 'design' that could potentially be
used in a contract. This latter is useful in design education where most
designs are made for  a theoretical client. It is also possibly a good basis
to get some 'creative industry' research money out of funding bodies!

Increasingly as design education becomes more closely allied with real world
commercial, social and environmental outcomes, the value of viewing a design
as part of a legal contract is likely to increase. It is also likely to
increasingly differentiate between design  and art, engineering design and
engineering, and communication design and communication analysis in the way
that has occurred in the software world where 'software designer' is a
different job from 'programmer' or 'system analyst'.

Thoughts?

Best regards,

Terence

===
Dr Terence Love
All About Design Research
Everything useful for design research and design
www.allaboutdesignresearch.com
[log in to unmask]
===





-----Original Message-----
From: Bill, Amanda [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, 25 May 2008 6:03 AM
To: Terence Love
Subject: RE: Design - Innovation

Hi Terry ,
Thanks for the idea of design as a contract. I have been trying to think
about the role of the design school in educating students for a 'creative
economy' which values   'distributed' or 'vernacular' creativity. Such
'creative' activities must be generated without any contractual partnership.
If a design isn't a design until it enters a contract, then we have a basis
for understanding how to turn 'creativity' into design. Does this make
sense?

Amanda Bill,
College of Creative Arts
Massey University
Wellington NZ

====
dear terry,

i have no great thoughts on your argument.  if you have reviewed several
hundred definition, and are searching for good ones or the best, then you
ignore the context of why these definitions are made.  in the course of
legal proceedings, you are right the aspect of legal obligations are
important.  if an architect designs a building that collapses he or she is
legally liable -- to the extent that the collapse is due to negligence in
calculations.  but focusing on this aspect ignores other contexts.  for
example if i want to impress a potential client with my capabilities, i
speak of ideas the client does not have of bedazzle him or her with novel
solutions, and so, i am using a different definition of design than the one
the design department of a university uses to distinguish that department
from fine arts, engineering, architecture, graphics, etc -- depending which
activities are housed in the department.

if you look as definitions as fixing the meaning or use of the defined word,
this is one thing.  i prefer to look at definitions as to what they do in
particular circumstances, as speech acts with social consequences

klaus .