chuck,
indeed, i went beyond the article's determinism and talked about stakeholder
networks of which designers are a necessary part -- not fully determined by
it
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Burnette [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 9:50 AM
To: Klaus Krippendorff
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: On design - again?
Klaus: As usual you miss and subvert my point to avoid addressing it.
It was that communication between those in a social network does not
usually advance the knowledge of those outside it. Nor does it necessarily
deal with the advancement of knowledge across diverse networks in a
systematic, scientific way. I guess you missed it.
Perhaps your spam filter needs resetting. Chuck
On Oct 1, 2009, at 1:20 AM, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
> chuck,
> you say "unless your designers..." i don't own designers. you are a
> designer as far as i recall, so you are invited to participate in
> "explain(ing) and share(ing) what they(you) do both in and out of
> social networks." unless you do not want to talk about "such things
> as conceptual or computational models, heuristics, or constraining
> infrastructures (codes, circumstances, etc)" they tend to be the
> topics of conversations among professional designers concerned with
> who they are in relationship to their stakeholders, what they teach to
> their students, and what could improve their design practice.
>
> i suspect you (claiming to speak for "some of us") have "a hard time"
> including yourself in what we are talking about. i don't know why you
> feel more comfortable standing outside the practice of design, as an
> abstract theorist with a god's eye view of the world. (god has no
> bodily restrictions and needs no language, in fact doesn't need to
> explain anything to anyone else). second-order understanding is a
> mark of tolerance for the conceptions and articulations of others (of
> stakeholders in the case of design). i believe the "hard time" you
> speak of is encouraged by a conception of design as an exclusively
> intraspychic phenomena that one could and needs to conceptualize
> without talking in con-sensual coordination with others. i guess it
> is terry's view that we could conceptualize (talk about) design
> without talking or relying on non-verbal means of communication.
>
> klaus
>
> p.s., your message, chuck, ended up as spam with a relatively high
> score
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Burnette [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:42 PM
> To: Klaus Krippendorff
> Cc: Charles Burnette; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: On design - again?
>
>
> On Sep 30, 2009, at 11:30 AM, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
>
>> since you ask: my operational definition of design is what a group of
>> professed designers are satisfied with as accounting for their
>> practices (in social networks). if their articulations are
>> con-sensually practiced indeed, not coming from an outsider,
>> disembodied, abstract, and supposedly general, then it is sufficient
>> as a living theory of design -- perhaps not yours but for those who
>> use the word in con-sensual coordination of their practices.
>
> Klaus: This really doesn't get us anywhere in terms of understanding
> designing unless your designers are willing to explain and share what
> they do both in and out of social networks. It doesn't seem to take
> into account such things as conceptual or computational models,
> heuristics, or constraining infrastructures (codes, circumstances,
> etc) that are not consensual in operation. Are you saying that only
> the products of such abstract entities become objects of consensual
> language or is it their use that is sanctioned within the network?I
> suspect that some of us have a hard time with the lack of specificity
> of your "operational"
> definition. Although abstract and hopefully generalized from
> experience a respectable theory at least provides a detailed model
> through which both those inside and outside a social network can
> explore, "account" and seek to understand what might be going on.
> Chuck
>
>
|