Thanks Terry for taking the time to respond. It's appreciated. This is
probably my last contribution to this thread.
But I would very much appreciate your further thoughts on the points I
raise below in the text.
Regards, Robert


On 11 Jun 2010, at 02:25, Terence Love wrote:
> Dear Robert,
>
> Thank you for your message.
>
> One of the problems (raised in Design in 1963 by O'Doherty in the
> first
> Design Research conference in the UK) is that any definition that
> includes
> too much defines nothing. That is such as definition is useless in
> theory
> and research terms. O'Doherty's criticism was of definitions of
> Design along
> the lines of 'Design is everything'. It applies just as much to
> descriptions
> of Art.

Agreed. Design isn't everything. Neither is Art. And I'm happy to
acknowledge my thinking might be too 'broad brush', as you put it. But
as a PhD student I'm keen to understand some basic building blocks
before filling in detail. (I don't want to be seen as 'papering over
any cracks' in my Viva). So, to clarify, I'm not arguing for a
'something is everything' approach. But in the interest of me
understanding better your arguments, may I ask you again the question
I raised in an earlier post.

Do you accept or reject the ideas of Archer, (or Cross), that Design
has its own culture that is different from Science and the Humanities
(these are two of the more influential design researchers I am
interested in). Or, at a more basic level, do you accept or reject CP
Snow's arguments about two sub-cultures of Science and Humanities (I
don't think he was a designer).

Archer spoke about 'modelling', Cross speaks about 'Appropriateness'.

If you do accept these views, by my crude maths, Design is at least a
third of everything. Would you consider these as 'weak' or 'careless'
theories?

Let me be clear that as someone about to complete a PhD, these are
important questions for me to address to you on this list.

>
>
> A second problem of the field of Design is that the research
> literature is
> stuffed full of weak and careless theorising. (If you want to test
> this,
> publish any two pages from your favourite design theorist and ask
> this group
> to epistemologically analyse them). Design researchers as a group
> have been
> notorious for poor theorising. Fortunately, for PhD students (PhD-
> Design...) the situation is changing.

See my comment above.

>
>
> Dutton's list seems to incorporate both of the above problems. It
> lists
> 'core ' items of design that are common to many other practices. From
> Dutton's list, you could happily infer that Art was a sub-field of
> Engineering.

Can Art be a sub-field of Engineering? Is there anything wrong with
that.

>
>
> Implicit in your call is that if people agreed with your list, then
> Design
> must therefore be dependent on Art. This is a fallacy of the
> excluded middle
> (cat has four legs , dog has four legs therefore all dogs are cats).
> It's an
> example of the second problem above. From Dutton's list, it might be
> inferred that the core training for Design is Taikwondo or
> Astrology ....

I'm not suggesting, or arguing for Design being dependent on Art. I
don't believe it either. But here I consider useful the view expressed
by Cross about 'appropriateness'. If I view something in an art
gallery, I consider it to be Art. And I can appreciate the role design
plays in achieving the Art. If I read the Sunday papers, I consider
this to be Design. And I can appreciate the role art plays in
achieving the Design.
>
>
> Being explicit about the relationship between Design and Art needs
> more
> awareness, and more care to identify differences rather than broad
> brush
> over the cracks.

It seems to me that Art is being explicit about its 'features' and
'qualities'. You can accept or reject them. But I think you have been
arguing for Design to do the same. Surely, Design should consider the
identity of other subject interests so as to encourage working in a
cross-disciplinary way. I know that when I speak to Cultural
Geographers, they have some similar interests to Graphic Design. For
example, both are interested in the London Underground Map, but for
different reasons. I might be wrong, but I consider Geography to be a
mature discipline by comparison to research in Art or Design. But I
don't see this as problematic.



Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. London: Springer-Verlag.

B. Archer, K. Baynes & P. Roberts (Eds.), A framework for Design and
Design Education: A reader containing key papers from the 1970s and
1980s (pp. 8–15). Wellesbourne: The Design and Technology Association.

Snow, C. P. (1993 [1964]). The Two Cultures. Cambridge: Canto
(Cambridge University Press).