Gunnar,
following Herb Simons defintion of design dancing can be a form of
design too, or am I wrong? For me it's not about learning by interacting
with objects, it's communication through body movements. I don't see any
reason why dancing should not enrich the discussion.
In my experience all perception merges at some point and helps us to
build analogies. I replied to Fiona that I find motion is very
important. But I didn't meant it in the sense of the actual motion of an
object from A to B in t. It's the thing that helps me to understand
other things without the binary information. It doesn't matter if you're
following the contour of a melody or the contour of a landscape, a sine
function curve, or the shape of an design object, or the motion of
dancers, or make your way through a magazine layout. The process of
perception I experience is all about how much of a certain input type
you get over a time period. You could call this motion. We all have a
lot of concepts of motions and we use it to build up analogies between
totally different fields (and sometimes perception modis). I would go so
far to say that motion is the only reason why communication (-design) is
working beyond the pure transmission of information. Cross-modal
perception must have a common root and for me it's motion. (can not
prove it but it makes totally sense to me).
On the other hand we could go back to Dons dislike of the x+design
thing. I've read a lot on this list and I'm not sure anymore if
communication is a design discipline (said that we are not willing to
make a clear transfer of information plus x, where x is the value added
by design, but to express something or ourselfes).
Anyway, I like the thought that movement and the body could be some root
from which design is derived. Top down or bottom up, and if bottom up
how deep are we digging to reach the bottom?
Kai
>> Movement and the body doesn't get talked about much on this list....I wonder why this is. Is this due to the primacy of the human body - the overwhelming presence of the moving body in perception and consciousness - that means that people ( inc many design researchers) so often overlook it ?
>>
>> Any thoughts?
> I don't have any clear thoughts about how and when this interacts with some of what we've talked about here. I've previously conflated several issues under the phrase "thinking through making." It's clear to me that people learn differently if they interact with objects in the manner that much design gets done. Part of that is the facilitation of iterative action--making and remaking. Part of that is interacting with a thing. And at least some of this can be the physicality of the making.
>
> I wish I had something more solid to say about that.
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|