Dear Eduardo and all!
Thanks a lot for the many questions and statements made here,
it expanded my many views and it enriches my thinking as well as the ideas to create monuments
(in Foucault’s sense).
Creating a ‘Discourse School’ would puzzle people, but actually it could be a great monument,
wouldn’t it be? You can already find some ‘summer discourse schools’ at least if you google the
term.
Eduardo, it could also be, that with putting the question out there you already initiated such a
future entity. And may be we will see and laugh about it together one day...
The same counts to discourse discourse, which could be seen as a discourse to clarify
methodological aspects, in the same way we can speak about metadesign as a necessary
discourse of design.
But from now on I have learned that we should make a clear distinction about design discourse
and design as discourse, discourse of design and discourse for design, and within this fame
Margolin seems not specific enough using ‘Design Discourse’ for the title of his book, because as
you quote him right,…he is stating that there are debates about social and cultural transformation,
we could now frame as discourse of design,
or the critical theories from various disciplines can contribute about what design is,
which we now could fame as discourse for design.
But saying that I appreciate the book ‘Design Discourse’ since it revealed an important question
for me thinking about Design Discourse and its limitations, encompassing textual matter beyond
rhetoric.
All best,
Jurgen
|