Yes, Stephen
I am rather with you. Our job as designers is not to think; rather to
prescribe artifacts, more or less methodically conceived. So if there is
any grouping/identification to be made, I agree that it would be based on
each designer's practical productions, instead of her/his thoughts. But
production, artifacts generated out of particular respective "approaches",
and not based on mere "thoughts".
Maybe we should not necessarily use the vocabulary of classic ONLY
"thinking" academia. But then, for academic purpose which, the way I
understood it, is the main concern of Erik, should we invent other
qualifiers, over the naming of the usual many sub-fields such as... textile
design, graphic design, food design, architectural design, toy design,
engineering design, etc. etc?
For sure, what we exactly do, we do not think and elaborate thoughts, full
stop. We go further in devising implementation of those "thoughts".
Therefore we don't form, or basically belong to, "school of
thoughts"...Rather, individual designers in any sub-field follow certain
similarities in practical approach to designing. Perhaps for us any
grouping should be based on such practical similarities?
Best regards
Francois
Kigali
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Stephen Matthew Wisniew <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Erik,
> Another thought might be to approach design by the actions that it
> produces: intentional design followed through with action and coordination
> from a designer produces an intended outcome or several outcomes; whether
> intended or not. There are different styles of design out there, different
> orders of magnitude and huge variations in projects even within the various
> disciplines. Most certainly there are different philosophies, and general
> and specific views about design. How about looking at the clients that
> designers work for in both the general and specific sense?
>
> In academics, I see that groupings of philosophers seems to occur into
> easy to remember ways of talking about general philosophical movements:
> Chicago School, Austrian Economics, Keynes Economics, etc. I consider these
> the schools of thought.
>
> Instead of looking at Schools of Thought, I am suggesting looking at
> design in its productive outcomes.
>
> Look at designers from a designer to project point of view (it's not
> perfect, but it's something to think about). This is not the schools of
> thought approach. This approach looks at your labor cost to production,
> which if you are a business owner makes sense.
>
> To do this analysis, you say to yourself: Engineers are designers, so
> what do they produce and what do they do? Architects are designers, what do
> they produce and what do they do? (as I am staring at the list below it
> seems to flow from tangible to the intangible outcomes)
>
> 1. Engineers, Architects, Economists, Artists, Politicians: large civil,
> electrical, environmental engineering projects, large and small dwellings
> and structures, urban/non-urban planning, systemic economic policies, small
> and large exhibits and expressions.
>
> 2. Product Developers: small artifacts, objects, automobiles, digital
> experiences, personal products or products where we can choose how to
> dispose our available income.
>
> 3. Consulting and Marketers or Marketing: psychology of persuasion,
> insights into what products and services people will want, find new
> products and services and business models to exploit, promote consumption
> and behavior change, analysis and recommendations.
>
> I'm certain this is open to debate and also that there are more and varied
> ways of looking at this. But I was thinking that schools of thought are not
> as important as what people do with their thoughts to create productive
> actions; hence, design. Thanks!
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|