Dear Eduardo and Klaus,

Thank you for both your messages. Both of you seem to be right. 

When we 'gather information' sometimes it is like gathering pebbles where
the informaiton is very explicit. Much of the time in a field like Design
though informaiton is  generated  by what we do and is often generated in
our heads. It seems to be helpful in many ways to do a hairline split
between the 'creation of information' (perhaps from processing perhaps from
spontaneious eruption of thought or movement of the pencil) and the
'gathering of that information' so we can eventually use it in creating a
plan or design, i.e. a  or specification for making or doing something. Its
what often distinguishes the outcomes and outputs  of a design method from
the doing of the method.
I feel it's failry obvious to distinguish between using a design method
(brainstorming, morphological analysis, concept layering, sketching or
whatever) and then using the outcomes of that method as part of methodless
creative design activity.
 I'm suggesting the reason we do design methods is to get information
(perhaps mentally and may be subconsciously) that we use in creative design
activity.

Thoughts?

Best wishes,

Terry

 

-----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: Wednesday, 24 September 2008 8:58 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Design as Research?

Hi Terry,

Let's focus.

You wrote:
"If drawing has any value as a design method, it results in more knowledge
and understanding,or the availability of more understanding."



More knowledge? Is Drawing Research? But yet, even if Drawing do not result 
in more knowledge wouldn't it had value as a design method? Schizzi, 
schetches, were suggested by Vasari to simply flow as triggers for formal 
decisions. I wouldn't call it knowledge or knowledge enhancers? But they 
seem to be very valuable in Design. (or at least valued) I would say that 
drawing as design method is very valuable if it helps you to imagine things 
that you or no one knows about, and therefore can hardly be considered as 
knowledge. I agree with understanding, though. You understand unknown things

such as Chimeras, aliens, Benfica's defeats, dwarfs and elves through 
imagination.



You wrote further:



"If a designer draws something as a design method, they are trying to use 
the
drawing to understand the situation better - i.e. to gain information."



Here I sense that in English, drawing refers mostly to observation drawing. 
My word for drawing contains also designing so we might be banging our heads

in different concepts. However, understanding, for me, corresponds to gain 
processed information that was previously gathered. Drawing is a particular 
creative method of processing information sin it always organizes 
information creating new information.

I resent particularly your 'i.e.' My computer gains information every day 
but do it understand any situation any better. You would say that this
doesn't 
mean that understanding a situation better do not correspond to information 
gaining. Yes it does, but the gain in information is the less interesting 
fact in understanding things. As an example I would say that sometimes 
loosing information if more important in a design process because it helps 
to move on in the decision process. Understanding something means, 
sometimes, that you discarded information and drawing certainly helps you 
doing so.



You asked:



"I'm interested in how you would define a mutually exclusive difference
beween 'non-creative design methods' and 'creative design methods'? As far
as I can see, 'creative' doesn't do it."



Although I sympathize with your wish for a mutually exclusive difference 
definition for my previous pun, I will not do it since, in fact, 'creative' 
doesn't do it. I just wanted to stress the fact that gathering information 
is different from interpreting (for instance) information and interpreting 
is a way of processing information, more characteristic of being creative 
than just gathering information.

As an axiom your axiom is at this point leading to contractions and 
misleading about what design methods are (some clearly away from information

gathering methods).



If your axiom were an axiom I could state with no hesitation that sketching 
is an information gathering method. That coloring and shading an 
architectural drawing is an information gathering method. Discussing with 
colleagues is an information gathering method. That crying Aha! is an 
information gathering method. I see all this as reconfigurating or 
producing, processing, interpreting, new information and this is the crucial

part of design methods: producing new information, otherwise they aren't 
design methods because they don't have a projection in the future. So:



Axiom 1. Design is a method of processing information that not allow us to 
call it simply gathered.



So Design is a Method of organising information.



For this, Design needs information gathered.



So we deduct that Design needs methods of gathering information but Design 
methods are the processes by which information move from gathered to a 
superior layer of organisation.



So All Design methods are methods of organising gathered information.



So creative Design methods are methods of organising gathered information in

a creative way.



All the best, hope to see you soon,



Eduardo