Teena et al,
Of course your portfolio can be all those things. And more.
The notion of the 'right' design that wasn't recognized by the
stakeholders underscores the collaborative nature of designing -
something others have discussed recently too. The whole notion of
'right' needs to be considered carefully.
I've designed things that went no where too. Everyone has. I try to
learn from these unhappy (for me) events in two ways:
1. what did I miss in the 'problem' or 'imbalance' study that led me to
a design that others didn't accept?
2. what did I miss in bringing together the stakeholders so that we
could have come up with a design that made *everyone* happy?
I keep all the old "failures" because I never know when I'll find a
situation for which they can work.
But that's just how I think. Your mileage will vary, and vive la
difference!
Cheers.
Fil
teena clerke wrote:
> Crawling from my bed very very early on this wintry Sydney morning, I
> follow this 'line of flight' (Deleuze and Guattari 1975).
>
> What might happen if I conceptualise design spaces not as problem
> spaces, and thus design outcomes NOT as evidence of having solved
> problems - how else might they be seen? In the process of designing, as
> is often the case, other possibilities emerge but are rejected as being
> 'not right' by particular stakeholders (but not me?). What of these
> other design possibilities? Might my portfolio perhaps also represent in
> my memory the lost possibilities of each job? I have stories for every
> job represented as an outcome in my portfolio, of the 'one that got
> away', the 'great idea' the client did not go for, or those that
> couldn't be 'resolved'. Does this not represent a problem for design
> spaces conceptualised as problem 'solving'? In this space, are there
> only solid, concrete, stable, sanctioned winners as represented in the
> portfolio? And if so, what happens to the other possibilities? Do they
> remain, problematic, ghostlike in our stories? Do they emerge perhaps in
> other jobs? What if we conceptualise the design space as one of
> possibility? How then might we speak of our work?
>
> teena
>
> Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F., 1975, from 'A thousand Plateaus:
> Capitalism and Schizophrenia', from 'Introduction: Rhizome', cited in
> Norton's Anthology, p. 1595 (sorry, don't the have full publication
> details).
>
>
>> Teena et al,
>>
>> Re: your first paragraph.
>>
>> I don't know about Gavin, but I think your description fits
>> beautifully with how I see designing - including engineering designing.
>>
>> Now please have mercy as I'm about to use words in ways to which some
>> may be unaccustomed, but it's the words that work best for me & my
>> background.
>>
>> Designing usually (in my experience, always) begins with an analytic
>> stage. The designer, confronted with a new situation, is unlikely to
>> "fit" into it / understand it very well. The designer will then try
>> to figure out what the "real problem" is - what's missing from the way
>> things are. This requires a rather deep understanding.
>>
>> Teena, this is where your brainstorm, etc, happens. My perspective is
>> that the problem is there, you just don't recognize it as such,
>> because (and I'm guessing here) "problems" exist in "more corporate
>> design" settings. Your "problem", generally, is finding the right
>> image/visualization to communicate certain emotions & other info to
>> specific individuals or groups.
>>
>> The study of the situation your in - aka the problem you have to solve
>> - will map key features/points/aspects to certain
>> memories/emotions/capabilities you have stored in your brain. To do
>> this you have to take the situation/problem apart...."deconstruct" is
>> perhaps too overloaded a word. That is, you're analyzing the
>> situation (perhaps inspirationally - whatever works best for you!) and
>> connecting the dots in your head.
>>
>> Put another way, you're finding a way to overlap your perception of
>> the actual situation onto your own mental structures and, thus,
>> absorb/understand it.
>>
>> Then you start coming up with something that will change the situation
>> in a beneficial/desirable/required way. Some people call this
>> designing, but it can't happen except in the most trivial cases
>> without first understanding the current situation (the analysis), so I
>> think of designing as including both the analytic and (sorry for the
>> next word, no offence intended again) synthetic.
>>
>> At least, that's how I see it.
>>
>> Re: your second paragraph
>>
>> I'd say the temporal ordering of tasks will vary from situation to
>> situation. But the tasks themselves will be there sooner or later,
>> and that there will be many similar situations that will end up with
>> task orderings that are very similar too, and that might be assumed
>> permanent features by those who are often involved in those situations.
>>
>>
>> teena clerke wrote:
>>> Hi Gavin,
>>>
>>> I am mindful that there are also spaces in which design operates that
>>> are not seen as being problem-based, so articulating design space as
>>> 'problem' space may be misleading and also limiting. Suffice to say
>>> that in my experience, design can occur as a way of thinking,
>>> practicing, experimenting, researching (before picking up the drawing
>>> implement, I always list, brainstorm, play with words), and then
>>> doing/making/visualising, etc, without there being a 'problem' as
>>> such. In fact, many of my designs, and particularly illustrations are
>>> conceived and then executed this way. Is this design? Is it practiced
>>> within a 'problem' space? Can design space be articulated as
>>> occurring within 'inspirational' space without there ever being a
>>> problematic? I suggest so, but suspect not in the realms where more
>>> corporate design resides.
>>>
>>> Further, in my experience, the way you have worded the proposal
>>> suggests that design is linear, and we can also 'suspend the desire
>>> to draw', when in fact, drawing, mark making, and so on are very much
>>> a part of the 'thinking', 'researching' and 'defining' activities - a
>>> bit chicken and egg really. They don't seem to have formal stops and
>>> starts, and are not easily articulated as a linear process, or even a
>>> circular sequential process, nor do they occur in isolation or
>>> explicitly in teams (in fact, frustratingly, they most often occur
>>> just when you crawl into bed at night - try and categorise that!).
>>> Very tricky process this, attempting to find commonalities without
>>> also excluding. But still, in my opinion, a commendable one.
>>>
>>> And might I suggest that it might also be useful to explore this
>>> question empirically with your design students and practitioners,
>>> beyond the 'research space' of this list and beyond the 'academic
>>> space' of the university. These questions are really useful ones
>>> particularly at this 'defining' time in the disciplinary development
>>> of design, and ones that might be illuminated through speaking with
>>> practitioners who might thus provide insights into these very
>>> interesting ideas that blow the 'problem' space wide open.
>>>
>>> so, I ended up with a long response. hope you find it useful.
>>>
>>> teena
>>
>> --
>> Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
>> Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
>> Ryerson University
>> 350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada
>> Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
>> Fax: 416/979-5265
>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>> http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|