Hi,

Could we please get the full citation for Oguzhan's article?

BR. Lily

On 15.9.2013, at 10.03, Francois Nsenga <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

Dear Terry, Oguzahn, and List

Terry,

In most of your posts you always imply that the Mathematical language
is the best to express what we ought to be doing as designers, i.e.
broadly put in my understanding, conception (term I prefer than that
of "creation") of both tangible and intangible artefacts.

I asked in my previous post, first, to tell us how, in your view,
Maths are the best language for Designers in all sub-fields; and
second, if you would briefly instruct us all, not only to those in Art
& Design realms, more on how to go about teaching and learning such
most an appropriate language that some among us totally ignore, some
not at all  aware that they need it in order to perform better as
designers, and others have a poor mastery of such a language further
to poorly learning it during respective school and academic training.

You responded saying, first:

"(...)I have been resisting a weight of social pressure against my
research findings over the last three decades that there are limits to
what can be creatively designed in mind, using sketches and social
interactions, and that mathematics offers a way past these very
concrete limits to human abilities."

I am sorry, perhaps it is my poor language ability. But, after reading the
above several times, I still don't understand quite well what you are
referring to. Are you telling us that all those years you have been
affirming and providing evidence, through research, to the above, that "there
are limits to what can be creatively designed in mind, using sketches and -
referring to - social interactions"? What are those limits and which is the
evidence you have come up with? As well, you have been affirming and
providing evidence "that mathematics offers a way past these very concrete
limits to human abilities"? Would you please elaborate a little more on
this affirmation and evidence?

Second, you tell us that mastering and becoming 'fluent' in mathematical
language, it would take 20 years of uninterrupted and sequenced learning.
Would there be shortcuts you may suggest, hopefully ? Or we just give up
such an appropriate and highly efficient language, apparently exclusive to
the gifted few, the rest of us being left with our common mediocre and
inefficient 'stammering'; or to some, those in "creative" domains, left
with far limited intuitive pretenses?

By the way, I do not here mean to press you even more on this, or burden
you with a difficult challenge to design an entire curriculum.  Just aiming
at understanding a little better and learning more.

I have just gone through the brief presentation you recommend for learning
about  Systems Dynamics (same as "Dynamic Systems" ?) for beginners. Right
at the beginning of the presentation, I read that going through the 'Road
Maps course' will require "no previous system dynamics knowledge", but
"only basic math skills."

First, what are those 'basic maths skills' that I will need to possess in
order to be able to learn how to model reality or "real systems"? And prior
to that, why should I be in need of maths in order to model reality anyway?
In which way(s) maths based models of reality  are better than or superior
to intuitive or otherwise reasoned models?

And dear Oguzhan, I also have finished reading your paper in Design Issues.
Thanks for sharing hints on how to introduce maths, especially geometry
concepts, to students learning how to graphically represent 'forms' (of
reality?? or those simply imagined??). We all agree that this kind of maths
is indeed useful to those in a Art & Design curriculum but, I think, also
highly valid for those engaged in other sub-disciplines of Design as well.
Thus far, the core mode  of our professional languaging is graphical,
meaning that we all need or ought to somehow master skills in 2D and 3D
sketching and/or technical (CAD) drawing. But is this enough for us to do
what we are required to do as professionals? A single mode of expression at
all levels, both as application technicians and concept researchers and
concept setters?  Or do we each have to master additional and more
appropriate, specialized concepts and languages in several other domains
including maths?  Is the usual basic geometry, i.e. 2D and 3D that we all
learn in the early undergraduate years, sufficient to perform well in all
sub-field of design and at all levels of conception?

Best wishes to all.

Francois
Kigali, Rwanda


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

Prof. Lily Diaz-Kommonen
Head of Research
Media Lab Helsinki
Department of Media
Aalto University, School of Arts, Design and Architecture
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
<http://sysrep.uiah.fi>






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