Hello,

I feel we have been getting too precious about defining design. 

There are two simple design-based approaches to making the definition.

The first is to shift the focus onto the noun 'a design'. Mostly the effort
has been on defining the verb form of 'design'. That is like aiming a bow
without a target or making food without anyone to dine.

In all the hundreds of fields of design that I know about, the noun 'design'
refers to a specification or plan for making something or doing something.
The only exceptions are some parts of the art and design sub-field who
confuse 'a design' with the final artifact. Gunnar's post (below) clarifies
this point well. This focus on 'a design' is especially useful  because it
also provides a means to differentiate 'design' from 'art'  as activities. I
would like to hear from  anyone who can think if a version of 'a design'
that is not a  specification or plan for making something or doing
something. 

The  noun form of  'a design' appears to be agreed across all fields of
design and this then makes defining the verb form effortless.

The verb form of 'design' can be simply viewed as "to  create 'a design'".

The second approach is to ask how we would design the definition of design.
When I try it, being  including as many factors as I can think of and have
been mentioned on this list, the best design solutions come to much the same
as the first approach.

Best wishes,
Terry
____________________
Dr. Terence Love, FRDS, AMIMechE
Design-focused Research Group, Design Out Crime Research Group
Associate Researcher at Digital Ecosystems and Business Intelligence
Institute
Research Associate,  Planning and Transport Research Centre
Curtin University, PO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845
Mob: 0434 975 848, Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629, [log in to unmask]
Engineering, Edith Cowan University
Perth, Western Australia
Visiting Professor, Member of Scientific Council 
UNIDCOM/ IADE, Lisbon, Portugal
Visiting Research Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise
Development
Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
____________________


-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Swanson,
Gunnar
Sent: Friday, 20 June 2008 10:13 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: A simple definition of 'Design'?

Some notes on the meaning of "design" (or, more precisely, on some meaning
clusters of "design.")

As Eduardo points out, one primary sense of the word design is drawing--but
in the sense of a plan rather than in the sense of an object that is its own
end. (The English word "design" dates back to the 14C. It comes from Middle
English to outline or indicate which came from the Anglo-French and Medieval
Latin for to designate which in turn came from the Latin for to mark out.)
Other core meanings center on conception, intention, arrangement, graphic
representation/communication, and pattern and ornament.

The word's current use in my small corner of the world is a byproduct of
modern production. It has implications of the planning of an object that is
separate from (but informed by/about) the production of the object. Graphic
design was a coinage that generally coincided with the separation of design
(i.e., the planning of form) from the printing process. In the same sense,
product design as an occupation came about with mass production allowing the
separation of design from making (except for the making of plans or
prototypes.) This use of the term implies an assumption of a physical object
but the dematerialization of publications and products make that a problem
so the immaterial aspects seem to be coming to the fore. Faced both with
immateriality and an interest in expanding our influence, many of those of
us in this tradition have tended to concentrate on the variety of mental
skills that relate to our previous object creation. A concentration on
planning people's experiences has become central for many of us in these
design areas. 

Some remaining aspects that define design include useful outcome and
intentionality. There is still some concentration on realization--beyond
just concept. The idea of strategic aspects, iterative method, systems
thinking, complex or abstract goals seems to distinguish what might be
called big D Design from small d design.

Some questions:

Glen Johnson tells us that "design is an artistic act of exceptional
engineering." Does that mean that anything that does not focus on
engineering or anything that is unexceptional in its engineering is not
design?

How is design in engineering distinguished from other aspects of
engineering? How about in architecture?

Several people seemed happy with design as innovation. Leaving aside the
question of whether there is non-design innovation, does that mean that
anything that is not new is automatically not design? 

People use the phrase "art and design." Can anyone tell me what that means
or includes?

Gunnar
----------
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
1901 East 6th Street
Greenville, North Carolina 27858

[log in to unmask]
+1 252 258 7006

at East Carolina University:
+1 252 328 2839
[log in to unmask]