Hello,
Comment...
Regarding the notion of the quasi-object (Serres, who also in the
definition mentions : quasi sujet..quasi subject), you might be
interested in knowing that the wording ("quasi-subject" objects) was
brought in the field of design by E. MAnzini in his book Artefatti,
chapter 9. I see it more a metaphor than a philosophical concept or
category (refers to objets that have some interface, not to the
essence of what could be an interactivity).
Gesture as quasi-object... Serre's quasi-objet is, in my
understanding, designating the status of the signifier, when the
signifier is embedded in an artifact, and changes the meaning of that
that is connected to it. I see it more as an addition to semiotics,
rather than sociology (at least, as a french reader...). So I find it
conceptually far from ANT.
We had some time a debate on the list about the applicability of ANT
to design, 1. Toward an Actor-Network Theory of Design thread, that
was last April, but I haven't saved all mails... and maybe you
checked that already.
Best regards,
Jean
Le 24 févr. 10 à 11:22, angpsi a écrit :
Would you please suggest an article of key reference value f
Dear all,
Would you please suggest an article of key reference value for Actor
- network Theory in Design Thinking and Strategies?
I am currently studying "gesture" as a quasi - object* for my PhD
thesis and although I've found a number of approaches scattered
around, so far my key reference appears to be Bruno Latour's
Reassembling the Social; An Introduction to Actor - Network - Theory,
Oxford University Press, NY, 2005.
*The key reference for the notion of the quasi object would be Michel
Serres' The Parasite, Lawrence R. Schehr transl., University of
Minessota Press, MN, 2007 (translated from the original french, Le
Parasite, Grasset & Fasquelle, Paris, 1980).
Thanks in advance,
Angelos Psilopoulos,
Lecturer at TEI Ath, Department of Interior Design,
PhD Researcher, NTUA, School of Architecture, Greece
________________________________
From: Doris Kosminsky <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tue, February 23, 2010 11:57:05 PM
Subject: Re: Design theories
Dear all,
I want to thank you for all the great and generous answers. I feel
privileged for being part of this list.
Thank you for the suggested texts and books. Specially Ken, who send
me his
articles. Just a quickly look at them, and I found systematic ideas that
will be very useful in my course. Although many answers were
important to
me, I'll just outline some of them that make me think.
Buerdek remembered me of Papaneck's wide comprehension of the field. For
better or worst, things has changed in the last decades. Changing
from "all
is design" to "which design area", as Terry remarked. Nowadays, we
have to
be more specific when talking about design. I agree with Terry point
when he
calls the use of theory in design field over-simplistic and
superficial. I
tend to think this can be the partially fault of the relativism that
put all
themes in the same level.
Best wishes from Rio de Janeiro,
Doris Kosminsky
Professor - Escola de Belas Artes
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro - UFRJ
|