yes, MP,
this is an eloquent definition of design. since you include nature in the process, this may well include random mutations. as i mentioned in the semantic turn, the very pleasure in introducing changes without intentions for a particular outcome can sometimes yield something that survives cultural selection. (but you might say that you include this possibility is part of opportunity minus the "for what").
i wonder if this elegant generality is too helpful.
i prefer to relate a definition of design to what professional designers (should) do. therefore, i like to:
* distinguish everyday design, which humans engage in everyday life, but largely for themselves, and professional design, which is design for others.
* focus design for others on making sense to those affected, being meaningful, usable, valuable, which is encapsulated by being human-centered and cultural sensitive. this qualification does not deny engineering, chemistry, even ergonomics, as involving design activity in the general sense, although rarely self-affirmed as such, and indeed indirectly benefitting other people, but not drawing on knowledge of human users and their cultures. to me the latter are central concerns for professional designers.
* invoke designer's accountability - without claiming general ethical principles, which always favor established elites - to those affected by the interventions they invariably cause. designs should always (a) benefit the community of their stakeholders and users, (b) minimize unintended and undesirable constraints along other dimensions of their lives, and (c) not harm or disable communities of non-users.
i don't see a conceptual conflict between the kari-hans' larger definition, and tim's more individual approach, but i do think it is necessary to focus professional designers on what they are good at, where they can make knowledgeable contributions, and for which they are appreciated.
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ranjan MP
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 3:41 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Ideas and definitions of what is "a design" in a broad sense
Dear Kari-Hans
Interesting question and position.
For me a "Design" is a response to an opportunity or challenge. A product of some agency human or natural. (animal architecture)
These could be deeply thoughtful and skillful (think and do) responses or intuitive ones (do and think - if at all) or even accidental or emotional responses, the incidental response (the great India *Jugaad*) or much worked through multiple iterations and trials (professional design) or (plodding and boring 'design' and scientific research as in molecule finding algorithms in the biotech space).
"Design" as a result of human agency is visible all around us including the trees and plants in our landscape through selective breeding and cultivation. The intangible cultural norms and social practices too are "Design" manifestations in culture and society. Laws, policies and business models as well as processes and events are "Designs".
So, we have objects - parts and wholes, communications - elements and messages, spaces and structures and systems, environments and eco-systems all manifestations of design, cultures and social norms.
Arjun Appadurai gives us the concept of social imaginary which could give us a rich description of design - ethnoscapes, mediascapes <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediascape>,
technoscapes,
financescapes, ideoscapes.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjun_Appadurai>
All humans and other actors contribute and it would be an interesting space for serious research.
With warm regards
M P Ranjan
from my Mac at CEPT University
5 April 2013 at 1.00 pm IST
-------------------------------------------------------------
*Prof M P Ranjan*
*Design Thinker and author of blog -
www.Designforindia.com<http://design-for-india.blogspot.com/<http://www.Designforindia.com%3chttp:/design-for-india.blogspot.com/>>
*
E8 Faculty Housing
National Institute of Design
Paldi
Ahmedabad 380 007 India
Tel: (res) 91 79 26610054
email: ranjanmp@g <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>mail.com
<http://www.ranjanmp.in/>blog: <http://www.design-for-india.blogspot.com>
(current and with downloads)
education blog: <http://www.design-concepts-and-concerns.blogspot.com>
(archival)
education blog: http://www.visible-information-india.blogspot.com (archival)
<http://www.visible-information-india.blogspot.com/>
------------------------------------------------------------
On 5 April 2013 11:37, Kommonen Kari-Hans <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>wrote:
> Dear Tim,
>
> It is clear that we have a different idea of design (as a phenomenon).
> For you, design requires the agent and intention, you do not think
> designs exist without that relation with the agent, and you prefer
> that design researchers focus on the designing by the specialists -
> this is what I infer from what you said. This is not all you said and
> not the essence, but key points where I think we think differently.
>
> I think that design is something that various evolutionary processes
> create, and that in this grand evolutionary scheme of things, humans
> are a very special species among organisms that has the capability to
> design consciously and intentionally (other species also create
> designs, and even make specific new tools to match a new need, but
> humans are in a different league). This has made a cultural evolution
> possible, which produced our human culture, which includes a lot of
> intentional as well as emergent design (designs that form the structures, processes, etc, of culture).
>
> Within this extremely large phenomenon of design, professional
> designers and their activities form a fairly small special case of the
> design phenomenon, albeit a very important and influential one. As the
> field of design has at its core a specialist expertise of designing to
> practice, reproduce and develop further, it is clear that it mostly
> focuses on that specialist idea of design. However, my belief is that
> that "other" design has increasing significance in society that also
> design experts and the society would probably do well to recognize and
> consider as something that belongs to the design phenomenon, as
> opposed to being outside of it or something that is "non-design".
>
> The phenomena in this field of "other" design are not ignored
> completely, they are of course tackled in many ways by other
> disciplines and also discussed by the field of design, but typically
> without considering it as a kind of design. I feel that it is useful
> to find ways to apply similar conceptual tools for both the specialist
> design and these other kinds of design. Which is something that I feel
> Papanek, Cross, Nelson and Stolterman and Krippendorff and some others
> do, in their own way, maybe with some other conviction and intentions compared to mine.
>
> All in all, I feel it is a useful exercise to try to understand what
> are the characteristics of that design (the phenomenon), and as part
> of that endeavor, I am trying to think about what kinds of designs
> (the design of the thing, not the thing itself) are being created in
> those processes. But it is interesting that even in the field of
> specialist design, there are few definitions of what "a design" is,
> and apparently, few needs to engage in that; for most it is enough to engage in defining what "designing" is.
>
> cheers, KH
>
> ----
> On Apr 5, 2013, at 2:10 AM, Tim Smithers wrote:
>
> > Dear Kari-Hans,
> >
> > Thanks for your reply! I hope you won't mind if I respond some.
> >
> > You're interested in
> >
> > "... how to describe designs that have emerged without an
> > intentional designer ..."
> >
> > and say that
> >
> > "... it is useful in many situations to think about
> > intentionally designed designs and emergent or
> > unintentionally produced designs in the same way, because
> > they all have their effects and consequences in the world,
> > regardless of where they came from."
> >
> > I would say designs don't emerge, intentionally or unintentionally,
> > and designs can be described in any way someone (an agent) finds
> > useful. Anything can be place in a design role by an any agent--a
> > thing that can do designing or not. So, in my way of thinking about
> > what a design is--anything placed by an agent in the design
> > relation--is as inclusive as they come. Agents, things like us, can
> > put anything they like in this role, whenever they like, for
> > whatever reason they like. There's no stopping this, not with good
> > reason, at least.
> >
> > But may be I'm confused about what you're interested in?
> > Things (and stuff) don't have "effects and consequences in the
> > world" because they are designs. They have effects and consequences
> > because they are things or stuff. Things don't have to be designs
> > before they can have effects in the world.
> >
> > So, are you trying to divide the world (or Universe) of things and
> > stuff in to Natural things and stuff, and things and stuff that
> > arise from agent actions? And you want to use the word design to
> > distinguish the two kinds? If so, why is this interesting for a
> > better understanding of designing?
> >
> > Accepting that I may be confuse about your aims here, I'd still take
> > exception to the way you talk of evolution.
> >
> > Evolution does not produce designs. It gives rise to things that
> > can be considered as designs--put in the design relation by an
> > agent. Remember, no agent, no designs. And evolution is no agent!
> >
> > Evolution doesn't produce cats, human beings, cells, eyes, viruses.
> > It's a Natural process (a complicated one) that gives rise to things
> > we (agents!) call cats, human beings, cells, eyes, viruses, etc.
> >
> > So, when you ask "... how can/should we define that design?"
> > are you asking how are the forms and constructions of these
> > things--cats, human beings, etc--to be described? Or are you asking
> > how they are designed? Evolution, in my view, does not do any
> > designing. And, in my way of thinking, since we can place anything
> > we like in a design relation (to us) we also get to chose how we
> > describe the thing when considered as a design, rather than as a
> > particular thing.
> >
> > Being a design is not a property or quality of something.
> > It's a role that something can be given by an agent. A role the
> > something can be given no matter how it came to be (and do, of
> > course).
> >
> > As I say, my sense is that I'm not understanding well what you're
> > trying to do and why.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Tim
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Discussion of PhD
> studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|