On Sep 2, 2013, at 2:16 AM, "CHUA Soo Meng Jude (PLS)" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> And perhaps it has to do with this skillful doing, rather than primarily scientistic cognitivism (whether rationalist or empiricist): in that sense a theoria, (not theoretical thinking), but a kind of unconcealing doing - the gazing at the gods who gaze back at us (thea harao). It seems to me there a kind of abductive thinking, a  kind of creativity.

See note on thinking through making below.

> I'm still trying to get a more complete sense of why amongst the professional Design community is this rejection of Simon's thinking and employment of the word design to cover the things he does.
[snip]
> Also the question whether design thinking is unique to design is important for another reason (not just for recognition of the specialist knowledge professional designers have), and is one we have to unpack further.  

My problem with this (and so many discussion here) is that there are a lot of valid definitions of the word design so we confuse ourselves by arguing about the word rather than the specific meaning. Maybe we need some sort of code to indicate which we're talking about: "SimonizedDesign," etc.

> One of the exciting things, Simon says, is that design is something  common in various arenas outside of say graphic or furniture design, and so relevant in ways that graphic designer may not envisage, and THEREFORE a case may be made for the university to TEACH DESIGN (specially design focally understood, not design willly nilly) AS part of the Core of the curriculum, say as part of one's liberal (arts) education in a university.   This seems to me a very exciting idea: not merely design that makes one a graphic designer, but design that if focal or normatively abstracted, that is taught and reflected upon, and relevant for students generally. This helps broaden up the potential and relevance of design as a discipline.

Certain design disciplines and art are two of the few places where thinking through making is still promoted. It's an important way of understanding that used to be widespread in our culture and is dying. The nature of our artifacts and the nature of our manufacturing and distribution conspire to separate us from the act of making, an act that promotes particular aspects of thinking. 

That sort of thinking is valuable to anyone. I don't know if bicycle repair and wilderness trail building would be as effective as design but I think that design (i.e., the sorts of design where you make lots of prototypes) for people who don't specifically want to be designers (i.e., professionals in the design field being taught) could be very helpful as part of an effort to rediscover what "liberal arts" means.


Gunnar

Gunnar Swanson
East Carolina University 
graphic design program

http://www.ecu.edu/cs-cfac/soad/graphic/index.cfm
[log in to unmask]

Gunnar Swanson Design Office
1901 East 6th Street
Greenville NC 27858
USA

http://www.gunnarswanson.com
[log in to unmask]
+1 252 258-7006


-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------