Hi Jude, Ken,
Thanks for your notes. I had prefered that you would address the second part of my post and not the first, but let's do it.
I do not travel with my copy of Sciences of the Artificial but I think that HS "definition" of design starts with the sentence: " Not only engineers design". By saying this and not saying for instance "not only designers design" and by not including schools of design in the list in the end of the paragraph, puts Simon argumentation on a side that not engulfs Design. If you read the whole book you will find that the sciences of the artificial are really the sciences of the artificial which in a simplistic way I will simply designate as scientific methods to project stuff.
The distintction between hard sciences and professional training and the prevalence of the first in university that HS complaints about is never confronted with Design as discipline of Art in a broad sense except in the riesling and cigar episode. Plus, I think that what HS calls "intellectual activity" is the kind of processes that we use to play sudoku and not the activity of reading Proust or watching Visconti. If you care to take a look at the authors he refers to we could hardly say that the sciences of the artificial is a book on Design. But yet it is a book on a human capacity that English speakers also call design. Although Francisco d' Hollanda in 1540's put in Michelangelo's mouth that desegno is the source of all sciences, it would be ridiculous to say in Portugese: "um medico faz design" or "as escolas de arquitectura, educacao, gestao, direito e medicina estao na sua essencia dedicadas ao processo do design". I'm only saying this to stress that the word Design that become global is the same that you (in English) use to designate specific professions ( that isolated normally means either graphic or product Design) or some attributes in some objects.
So in that sense saying tha t all professions design is not helping to answer the question is design thinking unique to Design ? because do not inquires about the nature of design thinking that only designers use. In a sense is similar to say that all professions think.
As for the confusion with Europeans i'll re write Ford's sentence adapted to the situation:
> "Some of us on this List, of course, especially Z and X, have always considered imaginative designers to be intellectuals (something self-proclaimed design scientists find puzzling, sometimes intimidating). The route to Design greatness with some large exceptions still nominally requires erudition, a familiarity with history and the achievements of the ancients".
Best,
eduardo
Iade-u, lisboa
Enviado via iPad
Em 30/08/2013, às 15:16, "CHUA Soo Meng Jude (PLS)" <[log in to unmask]> escreveu:
> This is most definitely what Simon was not saying, Eduardo. He says that the core of all professional activity is design, not that designers are not professionals who design. Of course designers design and is according to Simon,s bifurcation between the anslytic sciences and the professions, a pofesional activity centrally. But not just professional designers or engineers design, instead, professionals in other fields typically not called designers, or enginners also design. If hving defined design in the way he did, hiw would your European designers be excluded? And the Sciiences of the artifical was an exploration into the common thing , if there be such a thing, called design across all these professional fields. I think we need to discard not Simon,s definition, but your wrong attributions to him.
> J
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduardo Corte-Real [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 4:40 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Design Thinking Unique to Design?
>
> Hi, from the sunny hills of eastern algarve far away from my office, i will give a very limited contribution for the ongoing debate.
> Let's get back to Simon's definition of design which, i think, is one of the causes of all these problems. He writes: (i'm quoting from heart or maybe from another gut) "not only engineers design. Everyone, etc courses of action bla, bla and then lists a few professions that use design from which Design is excluded. So, in HS' s Sciences of the Artificial, this is a issue (design thinking) between engineers and the rest of all professions with one exception: designers. The text is still the same in the fourth edition so it seems that Simon deliberatly forgot to include designers among the professionals that design even in the late 20th century. Having in his live passed through Chicago, one would expect that HS would at least give some credit to the New Bauhaus but the only mention to Design by designers (apart from urban planning) in the book, is an interesting conversation with Mies Van der Rohe about cigars and riesling wine...
> So I would discard HS definition, it comes from someone that is either ignorant of what design is socially and historicaly or deliberatly choses to ignore it.
> Also because of this:
> "Europeans, of course, especially Germans and French, have always considered imaginative writers to be intellectuals (something we Americans find puzzling, sometimes intimidating). The route to European literary greatness with some large exceptions still nominally requires erudition, a familiarity with history and the achievements of the ancients".
> Richard Ford's introduction to "the granta book of the american long story", 1998.
> Why to I find pertinent this quotation?
> First because that's the book I'm reading. Secondly. Because someone compared writting with design. thirdly because if you substitute European for Some of us, and Germans and French for this person and that person, and writers for designers, european literary greatness by Design uniqueness, you will have a very good depiction of this discussions.
> One of the reasons higher education on design is important is that you have to READ Design for a few years. By reading Design, I mean to acknowledge its history and its intellectual dimension during the period of your live when you are suposed to learn things in a socially organised manner.
> Thus, a designer educated as such is someone not only tchnically prepared to be responsible for some projects by also someone who has been prepared to be part of a genealogy of social ontology discrete from others that was legitimated by time.
> Part of this discretion runs on Drawing but discussing this will make this post longer than the Lord of Vcations will allow.
> Also from Literature, for the ones interested in academia, i sugest the reading of "Stoner" by John williams.
> Cheers from vacations time
> Eduardo
>
> eduardo corte-real
> IADE - U , lisbon, portugal
>
>
> Someone compared
>
> Enviado via iPad
>
> Em 23/08/2013, às 08:28, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> escreveu:
>
>> Hi Gavin,
>> How about one stage further? How about a presentation to the Pope to create
>> a religious order of designers? Vows and all...
>> The colour of the vestments should be ok :-)
>> All the best,
>> Terry
>>
>> -----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 Gavin
>> O'Brien
>> Sent: Friday, 23 August 2013 2:05 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Design Thinking Unique to Design?
>>
>> Wow!
>> Lets extend that a little further and separate the grain from the chaff.
>> A profession of Epistemologically Valid Designers.
>> Over to you Terry,
>> best wishes,
>> Gavin
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> National Institute of Education (Singapore) http://www.nie.edu.sg
>
> DISCLAIMER : The information contained in this email, including any attachments, may contain confidential information.
> This email is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) listed above. Unauthorised sight, dissemination or any other
> use of the information contained in this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email by fault, please
> notify the sender and delete it immediately.
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|