Dear Robert and Luke,
Buchanan and Golsby-Smith’s graphics do not express Buchanan ideas well. For example, Buchanan explained that the orders are “places” rather than categories. He said:
“The orders are “places” in the sense of topics for discovery, rather than categories of fixed meaning. The distinction between a place and a category may appear subtle, but it is profound. It illustrates what I regard as a fundamental shift in the intellectual arts that we employ to explore design in practice and research—a shift from grammar and logic in the early part of the twentieth century to rhetoric and dialectic.” (Buchanan, 2001, p.10).
He did not develop further the concept of place but I don’t think tables or concentric circles are appropriate or sufficient visual elements to explain this. The textual interpretation is necessary.
I think that one of Buchanan’s key points is the evolution of design towards actions and systems. He argued that designers should address the problem of action; otherwise visual symbols and physical things have no meaning (Buchanan, 2001). Rather than seeing graphic design at the core of design, I see it as a step in the evolution of the discipline. Whereas the visual perceptible characteristics may be present in the majority of design processes and outcomes, the configuration of actions and systems are (or are becoming) the core of the design activity. This is the shift from grammar to rhetoric that Buchanan posited.
Best,
G. Mauricio Mejía, PhD
Associate professor University of Caldas, Colombia
Twitter: @mmejiaramirez
Buchanan, R. (2001). Design research and the new learning. Design Issues, 17, 3–23.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|