Dear Bernhard and all
Yes, I agree that your list contains many of my intellectual heros, that
also have done work that are influential for design. However, I usually make
a distinction between work that is intentionally (and language wise) about
design as a human activity, and work that is intellectually or theoretically
important and insightful and are relevant for design. Both are important,
but there is a differnce in the interpretative distance (if that is a
concept :-) As a reader it is not a difficult to interpret Krippendorff as
ideas about design, while for instance, when reading Habermas who does not
mention design directly, so some work has to be done by the reader in
applying the ideas. And then of course there are important writings in
between, such as Peter Paul Verbeek who is mainly interested in
understanding technology but also writes about design.
Not that this distinction is really important, but I think when thinking
about design theory it is worth noticing those who intentionally are trying
to develop a theory about design. They should be more directly examined and
critiqued.
Erik
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 1:44 AM, Prof. Bernhard E. Buerdek <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Erik and all,
> this is a list I was really expecting....
>
> But in line with Klaus Krippendorff /The semantic turn (2006),/ where he
> said/:/
> /"Design is making sense of things" /I am missing:
>
> Roland Barthes,
> Jean Baudrillard,
> Pierre Bourdieu,
> Umberto Eco,
> Jürgen Habermas,
> Tillmann Habermas,
> Hans-Peter Hahn,
> Charles Jencks, Helene Karmasin,
> Carl Eric Linn,
> Michael & Katherine McCoy,
> Rune Monö,
> Wim Muller,
> Andries van Onck,
> Deyan Sudjic,
> Susan Vihma
> John A. Walker
> and some others more.
>
> These are really useful for design theory, in the sense of Nigel Cross,
> that Design "is becoming a discipline".
>
> Yours
> Bernhard____
>
>
>
>
|