Dear Ken,
Always good to hear from you and have your valued opinion.
I have been corresponding with Chuck about his theoretical work off list but
was under the impression that he would welcome some additional general
feedback about the focus of his approach and some of its philosophical
underpinnings. Unpacking the concept of intention and its relationship to
purposeful thinking is analytical, but the parts of Chuck's modal array that
deal with experience he suggests can be best opened up through
phenomenology. That's been my experience too, and so I thought I'd draw
attention to and more publically commend the philosophical inclusiveness of
his effort.
I appreciate your continued efforts to get us all to expand and deepen our
knowledge of the existing literature. Until recently, I taught graduate
seminars in Design Theory, Environmental Ethics and Environmental Aesthetics
to student architects, planners (the occasional geographer) and landscape
architects for many years. I used your writings on theory in the theory
class because they were the best I could find. I have Simon's and the
Nelson/Stolterman book communing on my coffee table and finally took back
"The Semantic Turn" to the Architecture and Allied Arts library after
keeping it away from no others, I'm sorry to report, for six months. It's a
fine book, but not at all interested in the concept of intention or the
concept's roots in axiology.
Yes, I would enjoy having more comparative discussion of the work that is
unfolding in the field, in the spirit of real Criticism, that is, compare
and contrast explication as opposed to evaluation. It would seem to be a
good way to stimulate research agendas and bolster our theory makers. But,
then, that may be just my selfish interest.
All the best from Oregon,
Jerry
On 11/13/11 11:47 PM, "Ken Friedman" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Dear Jerry,
>
> The reason I have avoided entering into the substance of this thread is
> simple. If we are discussing philosophy and design, there is a serious
> and significant literature to review.
>
> If we are moving beyond this to describe a theory of design or a
> ³design theory that Œis responsive to wants and needs, is goal
> oriented, and guided by preferences and experiences¹,² one that is
> ³explicitly centered in purposeful thinking and that helps explain
> the intentional wholeness of {preferences and their embodied actions and
> expressions}² my argument would be that there is an even larger
> literature on which to draw.
>
> Because authors write with a purpose in mind, not all relevant
> contributions focus singly or specifically on this range of issues, but
> this occurs in the literature nevertheless.
>
> With respect to a holistic account of design process, Klaus
> Krippendorff¹s The Semantic Turn - A New Foundation for Design offers
> one excellent account. Harold Nelson and Erik Stolterman offer another
> in The Design Way.
>
> With respect to larger philosophies of design, I mentioned some key
> contributions the other day.
>
> No one offers a comprehensive account, yet there is good work being
> done
>
> Once you add the issue of how it is that we can make a theoretical
> account of design, a new range of issues comes into play. A theory is
> not a philosophy, but rather a model, and there is also good work on
> theory and theory construction in general and in relation to design.
>
> With respect to theory and theory construction in design, and accounts
> of design, I¹ll offer a few pieces of my own that deal with these
> issues in full or part. All are accessible for online download via the
> Swinburne Research Bank.
>
> Before closing with that list, I do have a serious question: are you
> asking us to address these issues here, on this list? In other words,
> are you asking for a well structured, rigorous thread that will actually
> further conversation? If so, it could be interesting, but you¹re also
> asking people to come together around a literature that people on the
> list often seem to ignore. Even the paper with its admittedly
> interesting perspective neglects key prior contributions on the very
> topics that it seems to explore.
>
> If you¹re really asking people to read, here¹s my half-dozen papers
> and book chapters on relevant issues. Some of these focus directly on
> theory and philosophy of design. Others address key aspects of these
> issues, if only on the way to addressing other issues.
>
> [1]
>
> Friedman, Ken. 2009. ³Provocation: Designing Solutions to Wicked
> Problems.² Designing Solutions to Wicked Problems: A Manifesto for
> Transdisciplinary Research and Design. Terry Cutler, Editor. Melbourne:
> Design Research Institute, RMIT University Press, pp. 118-122.
>
> URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/154443
>
> [2]
>
> Friedman, Ken. 2003. ³Design Curriculum Challenges for Today¹s
> University.² [Keynote conference lecture.] Enhancing the Curricula:
> Exploring Effective Curricula Practices in Art, Design and Communication
> in Higher Education. Center for Learning and Teaching in Art and Design.
> First International Conference at the Royal Institute of British
> Architects (RIBA) London, UK, 10th - 12th April 2002. Co-sponsored by
> ELIA (European League of Institutes of Arts) and ADC-LTSN (The Art,
> Design and Communication - Learning and Teaching Support Network).
> London: CLTAD, The London Institute, 29-63.
>
> URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/47336
>
> [3]
>
> Friedman, Ken. 2003. ³Theory construction in design research:
> criteria: approaches, and methods.² Design Studies, 24 (2003),
> 507522.
>
> URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/25614
>
> Or
>
> DOI: doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(03)00039-5
>
> [4]
>
> Friedman, Ken. 2002. ³Theory Construction in Design Research.
> Criteria, Approaches, and Methods.² In Common Ground. Proceedings of
> the Design Research Society International Conference at Brunel
> University, September 5-7, 2002. David Durling and John Shackleton,
> Editors. Stoke on Trent, UK: Staffordshire University Press, 388-414.
>
> URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/41967
>
> [5]
>
> Friedman, Ken. 2001. ³Creating Design Knowledge: From Research into
> Practice.² In Design and Technology Educational Research and
> Development: The Emerging International Research Agenda. E. W. L. Norman
> and P. H. Roberts, eds. Loughborough, UK: Department of Design and
> Technology, Loughborough University, 31-69.
>
> URL: http://hdl.handle.net/2134/1360
>
> Or
>
> URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/41897
>
> [6]
>
> Friedman, Ken. 1997. ³Design Science and Design Education.² In The
> Challenge of Complexity. Peter McGrory, ed. Helsinki: University of Art
> and Design Helsinki, 54-72.
>
> URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/189707
>
> For the record, I have not yet read the new book by Pieter Vermaas and
> colleagues, and the old one is a mammoth volume that requires careful
> review. I¹d also want to read Krippendorff again, along with Nelson
> and Stolterman, to offer a serious account. That said, I have not posted
> a paper on philosophy of design for which these form crucial background
> reading.
>
> If we genuinely plan to engage in serious discourse on this list,
> we¹ve got to demand more of ourselves with respect to our own
> literature. In my view, it would or should have been enough to
> offer private comments on the paper. If we¹re moving to a public
> thread, it is inaccurate to suggest that nothing has been written on
> philosophy of design or design theory over the past decade.
>
> Yours,
>
> Ken
>
> Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished
> Professor | Dean, Faculty of Design | Swinburne University of Technology
> | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] | Ph: +61 3
> 9214 6078 | Faculty www.swinburne.edu.au/design
>
> Jerry Diethelm wrote:
>
> --snip--
>
> Yes, I do agree that we need a design theory that ³is responsive to
> wants and needs, is goal oriented, and guided by preferences and
> experiences.² And perhaps not just ³guided by² but explicitly
> centered in purposeful thinking and that helps explain the intentional
> wholeness of {preferences and their embodied actions and expressions}.
>
> I think Chuck¹s is a fair description of our present situation and my
> preference would be to try to explore with him the structure and
> function of purposeful thought and its flip-side transformation into
> formative expression. Attempting to build a systematic vocabulary
> seems like a good start. So I take this as a proposal, not a
> conclusion. What other examples are there out there with which to
> compare?
>
> --snip--
--
Jerry Diethelm
Architect - Landscape Architect
Planning & Urban Design Consultant
Prof. Emeritus of Landscape Architecture
and Community Service € University of Oregon
2652 Agate St., Eugene, OR 97403
€ e-mail: [log in to unmask]
€ web: http://pages.uoregon.edu/diethelm/
€ 541-686-0585 home/work 541-346-1441 UO
€ 541-206-2947 work/cell
|
