I'm very much with Fil and Klaus on this one. If we flip the statement
to read that designers should not involve themselves in any aspects of
engineering, architecture etc., or indeed any aspects of another [art/
design] designer's role, then a good deal of valuably creative input
would be lost - I imagine there would be howls of protest from the art/
design community as well. In these days of team working, the notion of
a strict interpretation of a professional role seems rather outdated.
Multiple views of difficult problems are to be valued.
David
.........................................................................
David Durling FDRS PhD http://durling.tel
.........................................................................
On 13 Sep 2009, at 5:27 pm, Filippo A. Salustri wrote:
> Jose,
>
> You made the same mistake Klaus did. You wrote "Design engineers
> can also
> do this job, although this is not their main role, and therefore,
> usually
> should not be carried out by them." I agree with the 1st & 2nd
> clauses, but
> the conclusion (after the 'therefore') doesn't follow at all. It
> may be
> academically convenient to partition the typical responsibilities of
> one
> kind or another of designer, but in practise, I will not accept that a
> designer's disciplinary affiliation "should" (your word) prevent him/
> her
> from contributing substantively to design activities occurring in
> some other
> discipline. I have seen this happen in real life often enough; the
> interloper's input has been valuable often enough to convince me
> there is
> not necessary reason to exclude them just because their background is
> inappropriate by anyone's measure.
>
> I'm okay with saying something like "Design engineers can also do
> this job,
> although this is not their main role, and this may explain why they
> usually
> do not carry them out in practise." This is a statement of how
> things are.
> Using "should" makes me think you're saying this is how it's
> supposed to
> be. And that's where I disagree.
>
> I'm fine with differentiating between design activities. But saying
> that
> one or another of us "should not" do one thing or another is a value
> judgement I will resist absolutely, unless properly supported by an
> undeniable argument. Which is also lacking in this case.
>
> Cheers.
> Fil
|