Hi Ken,
Well spotted.
I feel the jury is still out on whether it is best to view design activity as 'people only' or as 'any process that creates a design'.
There are arguments both ways and I've been on both sides at different times.
The earlier historic positions (Nigel's and others) have also been bivalent on this.
My feeling is it's probably safer in theory terms at this moment to go for 'any process that creates a design' in light of the significant recent cutting edge developments in automated cognition, computerized replications of brain function and increased understanding of thinking as a physical process. From where I'm seeing things, the idea of limiting the idea of design activity to 'design is a thought process' is looking a bit simplistic. It's an area of design theory that needs a bit more attention to but probably will be clearer in 5 years or so.
I also feel we are moving on from Nigel's seminal work on design as a way of knowing because we know much more about how humans 'know' than was available when Nigel wrote it. Also, the idea of 'Design Thinking' is probably outliving its usefulness.
Warm regards,
Terry
===
Ken wrote:
There is an epistemological and ontological confusion in Terry's notes... ... people design, machines do not. Design is a
thought process.... Nigel Cross's work on designerly ways of knowing examines what it is to
design.
|