Dear Johann
I guess you also mean that the Design-designer's argument is either totally
or partially embedded in the artifact designed? And if so, then the
narrative of the designer's views, or those of his/her commissioners, is
either fully or partially contained in the artifact? This leading to the
standpoint held by some among us, that the artifact 'speaks for itself',
'self-explanatory' , with no further need for writing or talking about it
(rhetorical arguments)?
Francois
Montreal
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Johann van der Merwe <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> (...)
>
> Can anyone see the similarity between the developing identity of a
> discipline (e.g., a contingently "opportunistic" one such as 'design')
> and the developing identity of a person?
> Both the individual and the discipline needs to keep a particular
> narrative going, and in design that narrative can, to a large extent, be
> the same one for both.
> The use of argument both personal and professional should then question
> exactly how and why this narrative is constructed and maintained (and
> "kept going" does not really mean maintained in original form ...)
>
> I agree with Mercier and Sperber (thanks Don), that "skilled arguers ...
> are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views" ...
> in design, though, whose views are we arguing for?
> A skilled design arguer: whose views will be represented in the
> constructed and persuasive (rhetorical, as in the sense of "saying
> well") argument; will the argument demonstrate a balance between
> research rigour and situational openness, and will the narrative be
> 'readable' and acceptable to the final target audience?
>
> Johann
>
>
>
|