Hi Terry,
Thank you for your input to this set of distinctions. Do you mean quantitative performance? Do you also have an example to demonstrate this point?
I have a different set of drivers for the differential application of this set of distinctions. I suggest that maxims and imperatives and rules are all mental and/or organizational devices to reduce uncertainty for the agent and/or organization respectively. For this reason, the criteria for deciding whether one relies more on maxims than imperatives, or vice versa, will rest on the nature of this uncertainty on one hand, and on the other hand, the nature of this agent/organization/design arena.
I suppose maxims feature strongly in a design arena where the design practitioner/practice is unclear about its own ethics. In situations where there are uncertainty or ambiguity, designers in this arena fall back on maxims: 'form follows function'; 'when in doubt, strive for the golden mean!'. In contrast, imperatives feature strongly in design arenas where certain parameters can be universalized, and where violations to these universalizable parameters tend to result in undesirable consequences (e.g., Jonas: do not compromise the survival of the future generations). So I agree that imperatives are especially prominent in cases where legality and likely undesirable consequences feature strongly, while for day to day practice at least in the design of the built environment in the most non-technical sense, (the critical use of) maxims do just fine. In contradistinction to these two, rules feature most strongly in contractual settings, where parties agree to rule-following in order to reduce uncertainties on both sides.
The more interesting scenario is of course when the design arena is dynamic, and there is both a tension between maxim and imperatives, and many times, with contractual rules and imperatives.
Best,
Jeff
-Quote-
> These apply strongly in some areas of design and are almost non-existent in
> others.
> I suggest the driver is whether the design output is tested as to whether it
> fulfils its intent - described in quantitative terms.
> Designers seem to adhere strongly to maxims and imperatives in those areas
> of design in which the designer/design company is legally responsible for
> the design fulfilling its purpose, when actualised and tested against
> quantitative criteria. This is much less common in design fields where
> designers have arranged that they are not responsible for designs fulfilling
> their purpose defined in quantitative terms when actualised and tested.
-End Quote-
|