I should add that whilst Don's definition of design looks very similar to Simon's viz the modification of reality or artifacts to arrive at a preferred state of affairs (or somesuch), Simon did not stop there. He was interested, more precisely, in those who did this CAREFULLY, by employing CAREFUL logic, and this he spoke not merely of design, period, but a science of design, a science of the artificial, the rigorous axioms and principle sthat could guide design -- what design? Design in its focal sense. Not design willy nilly, modifying things as I prefer them.
Isn't this what Don has been saying and insisting since forever? Since I've read him on this list, he's been complaining how designers did not learn how to do empirical research (or something to that effect), i.e., he's complaining they do not have the tools to learn how to design carefully, rigorously, well, etc. So like simon, Don's real definition of design, if I may, is synomymous with design *in its focal sense*.
-----Original Message-----
From: CHUA Soo Meng Jude (PLS)
Sent: Friday, 30 August, 2013 3:28 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Perhaps it is the word "Designer" that is the problem
Arjun
I think you are spot on here. Design, seems to me to be a family resemblance concept. If there is an implicit nominalism in the word "design", if there is possibly no essential, common denominator or core in design understood generally and instantiated in all that we can call "design", how then can we begin to talk about it, to define it, to offer a definition that is meaningful? The strategy is signaled somewhat by Don, I believe, or I would argue. He's not so much abandoning the task to define design but rather abandoning the task to define design in that classical way, to find a common denominator, which will end up with a general meaning so loose it would be useless. Rather he seems to me after what is called a central case, or a focal meaning: a meaning that is identified, based on a normative criteria of excellence and importance or significance, and thus chosen, to be centrally important (so that other "designs" or "designing" whilst equally entitled to that term, as set as nearer the peripheral, the less significant sense). And thus true enough he zooms in on value, because presumably, Don values (or thinks important and significant) whatever it is he means by "value". He's saying, there are so many things that can be called "design", but whilst all can be sensibly called design, which amongst these are the best or most significant senses: well, precisely those designs that arrive at the valuable, or add value. This is the "design" that matters. And if we are offering a definition, than the purpose of such defining is precisely to locate that significant meaning under that word-sign "design", and point attention to it, set it at the centre, and comparing this central case will also allow us immediately to see what's at the periphery, and so deserves criticism, even if still design.
Jude
I'm not sure which of these options are accurate, or if there is another option - or another thirty options - that I am missing. Maybe "design" is equivalent to "game" in Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, and Don is right in abandoning definition in favor of more important focuses on value and specific practices. Or maybe Don's jump to value and "X design" delineation is simply a fallacy of relative privation. Or it could be that the misology that seems to be prominent amongst certain designers and design researchers is really the only intelligible approach (though I doubt it).
I'm really not sure, and I don't think I can figure out the answer on my own. This is why I am posting here now, so I would appreciate feedback from you, Don, and from all the other extraordinary members of this listserv.
Thanks,
-Arjun
References:
Herbert A. Simon, The Sciences of the Artificial, 1969 - http://books.google.com/books?id=k5Sr0nFw7psC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA111#v=onepage&q&f=false
Strategic Design, as defined by Helsinki Design Lab (HDL): http://www.helsinkidesignlab.org/pages/what-is-strategic-design -- it is also worth downloading (for free) or purchasing HDL's Bryan Boyer et al's Recipes for Systemic Change here: http://www.helsinkidesignlab.org/pages/studio-book
Ludwig Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, 1953 (translated by the wonderful G.E.M Anscombe) - http://gormendizer.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Ludwig.Wittgenstein.-.Philosophical.Investigations.pdf
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|