Johann et al,
See embedded comments.
Johann van der Merwe wrote:
> Gavin
> [...]
> Constructivism as a methodology of understanding is
> exactly the same: design is not to be defined as anything, if by design
> we mean the thinking parts that make up the sociological whole, and not
> design as the manufacturing parts that are shifted around the globe to
> wherever the cheapest labour is to be found. The definition of design as
> something that can be written down and followed as a recipe/rule, even
> as guidelines, usually end up as a rule-based method on how-to-design,
> instead of a theory that makes you look at a problem situation
> differently.
Manufacturing and outsourcing are definitely /not/ design - even the
engineers will agree with you on that. And I do not believe that a
recipe/rule oriented definition of design is a good definition either.
But these aren't the only options.
From my POV, a good definition of design will explain how the world is
"better" (yes, yes, I know - how to define "better") because of design,
in such a way that nothing but design could bring those improvements about.
> Real design (design thinking & design languaging) cannot and should not
> be defined, in the same way that Bruno Latour refuses to define what
> actor-network thory is and what it can 'do' for you.
Sorry. I just disagree with that. I would, in the fullness of time,
love to understand why you think this, but it will I think take a long
time before my context overlaps with yours enough that I can really get
the meanings you're trying to get across. Not that you don't write
well, Johann; we just come from too-different backgrounds, it seems, for
the understanding to come to me easily. I look forward to the struggle.
> [...]
> Johann
>
Cheers.
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/
|