Fil,

in my probably naive way, I am attempting to trouble the notion of 
'problem' in relation to design space and practice. In troubling 
'problem', I try to conceptualise my work less within a space of 
'that which needs resolution' and more within a space of 'that which 
emerges' from the process/es in which I engage, during the course of 
my career/life (cooking, falling asleep, brainstorming), not just in 
the workspace of each job. In saying, if I say that I am in the 
business of problem solving, then what I place in my portfolio 
becomes more or less 'problems I have solved' (because I choose not 
to include those which remain problematic). This in itself is 
problematic, given the ephemeral nature of graphic design outcomes 
and indeed contexts for graphic design (what was pretty 
cool/innovative last year is dated this year) - does this mean that 
all my work becomes problematic because it can never be anything but 
dated (Derrida's 'already already', sorry, no reference here).

I would also like to trouble the idea of there being a 'real problem' 
lying there, unrecognised, or that the process is to find the 'right' 
image/visualisation. This sounds like the beginning of an urban myth 
- designer ambushed by her lack of deeper understanding of that which 
is 'real', while the 'right' image slips away. My intention is not to 
mock, but to attempt to 'deconstruct' how we commonly describe the 
way we work.

Further, I am not certain I am able to store the things of which you 
speak in such a stable way in my brain, as when they emerge as copies 
of experience they tend to have changed (memory is but one 
copy/version of 'reality' - see Haug et al 1987). And what is the 
'actual situation' if it is not that which I perceive (a copy of 
which is also stored in my brain as memory). So, where does that 
leave the design space? Not sure.

Anyone have any thoughts about 'other-than-problem' designing?

teena

And, in saying 'more corporate design' settings, I refer to the 
notion of 'design as service' (in the corporate/neo-liberal world) 
whatever position the designer takes ('sitting at the table' at the 
beginning or 'making it pretty' at the end).

Haug, F. 1987, Female sexualization : a collective work of memory, 
trans. E. Carter, Verso, London.


>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/