Hi Terry,



Of course I include equations and symbolic logic… when they are depicting 
something. An equation for a parabola is a way of visualisation a parabola. 
But don’t forget that the matter in question is the parabola and what it 
looks like. When I write (y - k) 2 = 4a(x - h) and start to use some numbers 
in it, is ok if I start to “see” the particular parabola that I’m ‘speaking’ 
about. In fact, the equation for visualization is as important as thinking 
about a parabola that looks like S. Louis Gateway (a catenary arch) for 
instance.  I’m using that expression in favour of a form with visual 
expression that would be the same as using the drawing of the parabola (or 
the catenary arch). I don’t care about the technique method or way you use 
make drawings. An equation is certainly a way to describe something that 
describes and existing thing in the future. Also graphs can describe a way 
in a decision process or models of organization that have their visual 
expression. I think that we spoke about this before. Edgar Cardoso the great 
Portuguese bridge engineer started to design S. Joao Bridge in Porto 
(Oporto) pillars by cutting a carrot. See: 
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponte_de_S._Jo%C3%A3o

Of course that there are lots of equations for those pillars but for Design, 
for me, the carrot is the most important matter.

Math is a very good pen as any other and certainly is needed to put things 
to reality but I like to thing that Design is close to Idea (in its Greek 
meaning of image in your mind)

Back to the parabola equation there is something in the equation that 
describes what a parabola is analytically which is not very important for 
design and something in the equation that describes what the parabola is in 
terms of where it is, how long is it, how curved is it, what angle is it 
doing related to the axis (meaning what the parabola looks like) which is 
very important for Design.

In conclusion, I think that visualization (or drawing or imagination or 
imaging) should be in a simple definition of Design but that doesn’t mean 
that pens or pencils should be in the definition.

Cheers Dr Love,

Eduardo

PS: You know the dificulties of the experienced by the Mathmatician 
Stornaloco with the calculi for the height of Milan Cathedral's pillars. The 
CAthedral was designed respecting the "ad triangulum" design and the 
resulting height of the pillars was an irrational number (not invented yet). 
The Cathedral was built anyway.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Terence Love" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "'Eduardo Corte Real'" <[log in to unmask]>; 
<[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 3:29 AM
Subject: RE: A simple definition of 'Design'?


Hi Eduardo,
Do you include equations and symbolic logic as visualization?
Best wishes,
Terry
PS - I like the idea of adding 'school' to test a definition as to whether 
it is obvious as to what such a school would teach.


-----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 Eduardo 
Corte Real
Sent: Monday, 7 July 2008 3:32 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: A simple definition of 'Design'?

Hi Filippo,



Thanks for your correction

You wrote: "Engineering design is rooted soundly in
pictures (CAD models and various other renderings and visualizations)."

In fact it comes just to give credit to what I think. That any "simple
definition of design" should integrate anticipation through visualization.
That's why you distinguish between analytical engineering as using calculi
and engineering design as using CAD. Since I can imagine that Engineering
design exists at least since the middle 20th century I imagine that instead
of CAD engineering design used technical drawings.

I'm concern about a definition of design that do not include visualization
because design would become useless as a word, meaning anything.

Amanda Bill pointed out few days ago that old Design Schools and Departments
are changing their names to "Creative Arts”,” Creative Industries".

If Simon's definition is valuable there is no sense in calling anything a
Design School.

In fact it would be very interesting to test some definitions putting the
word school after

the definition, starting with Simon’s:

“[devise] courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into
preferred ones School”



The initial Daniel Chambers’:

 'Seeking differentiation through Insight School'



Bruce Currey’s:

“'de' construction of the 'sign' School”



Juris Milestone’s borrowed from Shore and Wright's book, Anthropology of
Policy:

“Mobilizing Metaphor School”



Anthony Cahalan’s:

“Research, analysis and creation of innovative products and services which
shape the human experience School”



Richard Buchanan’s;

“The conceiving, planning, and realising products that serve human beings in
the accomplishment of any individual or collective purpose School”



Karen Fu’s:



“Thoughtful living School”



My humble contribution:

“The necessary and sufficient depiction of feasible things to come School”



Gunnar Swanson’s:



“What people do not think of as design that is NOT design School”



Ian Rooney’s:



'Adaptation of representation School'



I’m forgetting many others sorry, but try this with as much definitions you
want,

 Cheers. J