Colleagues.
Below I have (taken more than a few liberties and) rewritten Terry Love¹s
thesis, taking his machine-oriented design perspective to what I interpret
as its logical home.
I interpret his long-held belief about design theory as being a
machine-oriented perspective that doesn¹t see itself as a machine-oriented
point-of-view.
Wallace Stevens, who wrote about the resultant culture of this perspective,
believed that it lacked what he described as a ³pervasive being,² and called
it ³the geography of the dead.² Terry on the other hand has kept his theory
very much alive on this list. Here¹s my uncovering:
***************************************************
Terry wrote to João:
² The problem is that as human designers we are so biologically limited in
our abilities that we cannot perceive or conceive of all the potential
combinations of possibilities.
³In contrast, computer systems are much better at reviewing large numbers of
combinations of elements that could make up potential design.
³I suggest this process and the way it has propagated through the design
literature over decades without challenge is primarily to protect our
vanity and egos. A consequence of viewing design activity in terms of
inventions, innovations, creative designs and the like is that we have
consciously or unconsciously covered up or hidden from view the reality that
our human biological limitations strongly restrict being able to perceive
or conceive of all the potential combinations of possibilities that are
readily available if we could see them.²
**********************************
Jerry¹s rewrite:
The problem is that human designers are so biologically limited in their
abilities that they cannot perceive or conceive of all the potential
combinations of possibilities.
In contrast, we computer systems are much better at reviewing large numbers
of combinations of elements that could make up potential designs.
The human response to this biological limitation is somewhat entertaining.
The response has been to turn the situation around and pretend that there
are combinations that have particular and pointed human significance and
claim both the expertise and the responsibility for identifying the relevant
ones - proclaiming them as innovations or inventions.
I suggest this process and the way it has propagated through the design
literature over decades without challenge is primarily to protect your human
vanity and egos.
A consequence of viewing design activity in terms of inventions,
innovations, creative designs and the like is to have consciously or
unconsciously covered up or hidden from view the reality that human
biological limitations strongly restrict the perception or conception of all
the potential combinations of possibilities that are readily available if we
could only get you to see them from our logical point of view.
***************************
There will always be a myriad of possibilities for artifacts. But lacking a
pervasive being, they remain only logical, which is the point.
Jerry
--
Jerry Diethelm
Architect - Landscape Architect
Planning & Urban Design Consultant
Prof. Emeritus of Landscape Architecture
and Community Service € University of Oregon
2652 Agate St., Eugene, OR 97403
€ e-mail: [log in to unmask]
€ web: http://pages.uoregon.edu/diethelm/
€ https://oregon.academia.edu/JerryDiethelm
€ 541-686-0585 home/work 541-346-1441 UO
€ 541-206-2947 work/cell
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|