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
|