On May 9, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I suggest the similarity is that the output of all design fields is *a
> specification for something to be made or done*.
> It is the creation of the specification (the 'design') that makes design
> fields different from other fields. As far as I can see, it is the primary
> and perhaps only defining difference.
Terry--I'm comfortable with that a the primary definition of design as a profession or trade. An interesting implication is that it makes design (with the exception of architecture and engineering) a product of the industrial revolution and later by implying a separation between the specifying and the making or doing. I'd want to be a bit more specific about "specification" but:
If specifying is the common ground, how did we arrive at an assumption that all such specifying might use the same tool kit? Even while we agree that, say, a dress designer and an engineering designer both create specifications, I don't believe that they do or should share assumptions about what makes a given specification worthwhile.
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|