Dear David and Ken and everyone,
Hi David, thank you for your post quoting Moholy-Nagy. What you posted is an
aspect of what I've been trying to illustrate: that design research and
theorymaking about design and design thinking was well-established long
before the UK conference in 1963. In reply to your comment about
'prejudice', my concern about the worlds of the Art and Design traditions is
their over-parochiality and the ways they are limited in their consideration
of larger design theory developments outside those fields. This kind of
parochiality and limited view also exists in engineering design, and was a
reason I moved to Art and Design fields and the Humanities 20 years ago.
It's great the picture of design that Moholy-Nagy presented started to
include a larger understanding of design.
Taking an even bigger view, however, Moholy-Nagy is only a minor bit player
in design then and now compared to the many not so publicly acknowledged
large national and international industrial design teams and organisations
in manufacturing, transport, textiles, chemistry, logistics, mining and
military arenas of that era and the couple of centuries before. The
academic difference, and this is at the heart of the problem I've started
pointing to, is that Moholy-Nagy was both part of the academic
infrastructure and developed a public persona in that milieu and there are
self-serving benefits in academics reifying individuals such as
Moholy-Nagy. The significance allocated to Moholy-Nagy's work by design
academics seems more than a little odd and unbalanced when compared with the
enormously greater, more significant, and more extensive, design activities
and theory developments in industrial complexes worldwide undertaken by
designers, design researchers and design theorists outside academia. The
extensive design and design theory developments of these hundreds of
thousands of designers (mostly in engineering design) has remained
relatively hidden to academics because those outside academia did not write
academic texts or teach in academia, and because academics have been
obsessed with an emphasis on evidence being publications, especially
publications in the academic publishing tradition. This has led to
misunderstandings about the whole of design, due to overlooking the much
larger historical reality.
In this, I'm not criticising Art and Design fields. As Eduardo reminds,
there are two traditions in design activity. The first is older, from Visual
Arts and drawing via the term design. The second, is more recent (over the
last 3 hundred years) mainly from engineering with the idea of a design as
a plan and designing as making such a plan. My interests are with the
second, the idea of design as a plan.
This idea of design as a plan, however, is what underpins most of the design
theory development in Art and Design fields of late. A reality is that
design theory developments around designing as making a plan have occurred
substantially earlier in engineering fields than in Art and Design fields.
This can be seen by reviewing the histories. It is also evident in the
developments post 1963, and in the trajectories of change of the DRS Council
membership, the history of publications of Design Studies, and the
trajectory of involvement in design research in Art and Design fields.
Taken together, I'm suggesting its helpful to gaining a clearer view of
developments in design (and design thinking) to:
1. Understand that developments in design theory and research occurred a
long time before academics began to be interested in the 1960s.
2. Understand and accept that much of the current academically promoted
theories of design are problematic and incomplete because of their academic
origins and the self-serving academic blinkers that limit understanding
(particularly when crossing disciplinary boundaries, and especially when
crossing mathematical and humanities boundaries).
3. Draw on evidence other than publications, and especially
readily-available publications. Much, perhaps most, that is important in
design theory and design research is never written down in an academic
form. It is either not written, or remains in the realms of dark or grey
publication (company internal reports, memos, bulletin boards such as this
list, etc).
Dear Ken, Evidence, in whatever its form, is always incomplete.
Understanding history requires discussion and identifying pathways of
reasoning that can be used to develop better understanding. These can later
be tested against evidence. In my posts, I'm mainly proposing pathways for
reasoning and analysis that seem to offer improved understanding and better
sense-making on the basis of evidence I have seen or read. As I have said
before, I am not trying to prove them as true to you or anyone else. They
are intended to be helpful insights. If you want to test them against
evidence, then please identify the evidence and go ahead. I look forward to
seeing your publications about your findings. As I've also said, if you use
ideas I've suggested, I would be grateful if you would please ensure you
cite them referring to my posts on this list in the conventional manner.
Finally, just wondering, are you Stephanie's supervisor?
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
[log in to unmask]
Sent: Saturday, 23 August 2014 3:02 AM
To: phd-design
Subject: Re: How 'Design Thinking Research' and 'Design Thinking' are
related (or not)?
On 22 Aug 2014, at 2:50 pm, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> This is easily identified in terms of design practices. I'd suggest the
burden of proof for those from Art and Design is to identify ANY aspects of
design theory that have been developed in the Art and Design realms before
they were identified in engineering design. Can you think of any, and
provide evidence?
Stephanie,
I do not intend to get drawn into this debate and its attendant spirals of
pointless abstraction. Nor do I think there is any point in engaging with
Terry's prejudices about Art and Design. I'd just like to remind this list
of an historical footnote that I have mentioned before. You might find it
useful in your research on the origins of design thinking and design
research.
I'm quoting from an epaper on our web site which provides an overview of
information design.
http://communication.org.au/product/information-design-an-overview/
> Design thinking
> The advances in ideas and processes which information designers use
> derive in part from other design disciplines such as architecture,
> town planning, product design and graphic design. In the 1930s, design
> educators and thinkers such as Moholy-Nagy were beginning to
> articulate a distinctive design point of view:
>>> Design has many connotations. It is the organisation of materials
>>> and processes in the most productive, economic way, in a harmonious
>>> balance of all elements necessary for a certain function. it is not
>>> a matter of facade, of mere external appearance; rather it is the
>>> essence of products and institutions, penetrating and comprehensive.
>>> Designing is a complex and intricate task. It is the integration of
>>> technological, social and economic requirements, biological
>>> necessities, and the psychophysical effects of materials, shape,
>>> colour, volume, and space:
>>> thinking in relationships. (Moholy-Nagy 1938)
> At the heart of this point of view is a recognition that design takes
> place in a complex social and material environment and that good
> design involves taking account of many factors to arrive at a
> successful outcome. Moreover, to create artefacts that will work well
> in these complex environments-whether these artefacts are buildings,
> towns, websites, or medicine information-requires a specific set of
> intellectual skills and craft methods, Moholy-Nagy's 'thinking in
> relationships'.
> Moholy-Nagy L 1938
> The New Vision: Fundamentals of design, printing, sculpture,
> architecture (Trans: Hoffman D M) New York: Norton
Warm Regards,
David
--
blog: http://communication.org.au/category/blog-david-sless-soap-box/
web: http://communication.org.au
Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
CEO . Communication Research Institute . . helping people communicate with
people .
Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
Phone: +61 (0)3 9005 5903
Skype: davidsless
60 Park Street . Fitzroy North . Melbourne . Australia . 3068
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
