Dear Terry,
I'm not going to delve into the issue of your selective memory about
what you
call the "discourse path". For any interested reader, it is simpler to
use
Jiscmail's archive to see to what extent you have misrepresented this
"discourse".
I'm writing this message to list the main things you still don't get
about
graphic design:
1. Graphic design is not an optimization problem. That is why you are
utterly
unable to come up with a proper example. In this email you start talking
about graphic design, and then use the optimization of a gearbox (!) as
an
example...
2. Graphic design is a process. As a graphic design buyer, you don't pay
solely for the outcome: you pay for the outcome and for the process.
This
process includes the huge "wetware" database that is the experience(s)
of the
designer you are hiring. This is what ties this discussion with the
original
topic, as that is the reason why "historical aspects" are important in
design
education.
3. Very often graphic design is actually the result of consultancy type
of
relationship rather than the type of transaction that you seem to be
trying
to model here. This is a corollary of 2.
4. Very often the graphic design brief is an open text that is rewritten
with
the designer. This is also a corollary of 2. Any experienced graphic
designer
will tell you that they have on more than one occasion dissuaded
potential
clients to hire them for something that they saw was useless to the
client's
ultimate goals.
5. Most of the time, graphic designers do not take ownership of the
process.
85% of the 500 respondents to my survey on the creative process of
designers
say their creative process is to some extent collective. 30% say the
process
has input from a lot of people.
I would further argue that you could erase "Graphic" from the above
issues,
and the statements will still be true.
For the sake of brevity this ends here.
TGIF!
Have a nice weekend,
========================
Carlos Pires
On 2015-04-17 18:56, Terence Love wrote:
> Dear Gunnar, Ken and all,
>
> Using Transaction cost analysis is probably helpful.
>
> First though, I think it's worth listing the discourse path:
>
> I posed a question about design history and design studies. Carlos
> reacted
> and asked would I trust a graphic designer who hadn't heard of De
> Stijl. I
> commented that I paid graphic designers to achieve particular outcomes
> rather than to know about history, and a couple of emails later
> suggested of
> future design education needed to focus on designers' responsibility
> for
-- snip --
> Comparing two cases:
>
> 1. A business which is buying graphic design conventionally from
> outside designers who design according to qualitative brief rather than
> quantitative outcomes (i.e. we want a quieter gearbox, rather than the
> new
> gearbox has to result in a 6Db reduction in sound at the kerb at 55 mph
> compared to the existing.) Here I've used a mechanical example to avoid
> distraction of wrangling about a graphic design example.
> 2. Proposed change in which businesses buy graphic designs from
> designers who take responsibility for the designs they submit
> contributing
> appropriately to measurable design outcomes.
>
-- snip --
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|