On 30 December 2013 11:11, Gunnar Swanson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> #1 sounds like normal biz-speak puffery. #2 is more interesting.
>
> On Dec 30, 2013, at 10:17 AM, Filippo Salustri <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> > Gunnar,
> > I've heard that turn of phrase most often in 2 settings.
> > 1. A way of describing the whole designing endeavour - a way of saying
> > "product development" without using those words, and implying a greater
> > degree of innovation than just "project development."
> > 2. A way of partitioning the "creative" part of designing from the
> project
> > management, business, or organizational aspects.
>
> In my experience, partitioning is counterproductive. It also tends to
> promote silly social bigotries where, for instance, the "creatives" deride
> "the suits" for screwing up "their" projects. It is worth recognizing that
> design (by most definitions I can conjure up) doesn't happen in a vacuum.
>
> Does this mean that we should assume that XXXX (I'll use that to stand in
> for what many people other than Terry would call creative design), project
> management, business, and marketing are the same and can't be considered
> independently?
>
> I think much of what gets called "talent" or "creativity" is not what
> people believe they are. Much of the talk around those words is, in short,
> romantic claptrap. However, Terry saying that he will avoid "the
> human-centric, meaning-laden and emotionally laden, common folk definition
> of 'creativity'" by relabeling it "any creation of a specification
> [design] for something to be made or done" does not debunk the "common folk
> definition" any more than sticking one's fingers in one's ears and singing
> "la la la la la" really undermines whatever is being said by others.
>
> To mix the metaphor, Terry's manner of dealing with other ideas seems to
> be to try to hoard all terminology so others will run out of words and will
> have to shut up. And then he wants to mock their silence.
>
Again: not taking sides. I'm just offering up what I've heard.
I personally think both usages as I've heard them are honest attempts to
capture something meaningful within the perspective of the utterer of the
phrases. I'm not sure that they've thought them through.
I have no idea how Terry's take on the term might relate to what I've
heard, though I'm pretty sure he's thought it through.
I look at this all through a systems lens. System elements can be
considered independently *and* together - indeed, either perspective on its
own is incomplete.
I honestly don't see Terry's messages in the same way you do. Perhaps
that's because I'm a hardcore science wonk,
reductionist/materialist/post-positivist kind of guy. I'm not saying my
interpretation is right and yours in wrong. I take Terry's messages as
only framing the term in a way that clarifies what his ultimate point is -
rather like stating one's premises before presenting an argument for a
claim.
Alternatively, perhaps thinking of it as a conditional counterfactual: "If
it were that 'creativity' means X, Y, and Z, then...."
Also alternatively, perhaps a scientific theory: "Given premises about
creativity, leading to a theory (claims and arguments), then what testable
hypotheses can be constructed, the validation of which through
experimentation would support (or reject) the theory (and/or the premises)."
Just pitching out some ideas here. I hope Terry eventually has the time to
at least tell me if I'm anywhere near what he intended. :)
/fas
\V/_
Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|