Hi Martin,
In the late 60s and early 70s, design research and design theory originated
primarily in mechanical engineering and operations research. That was the
start of the design research society, the design methods movement and
'design philosophy' .
Many of those early design theory approaches focused heavily on quantitative
approaches. Those scientific approaches been enormously successful and
fundamentally changed the way design is done - especially for
artistically-based design.
Some of us at that time were concerned that the early approach was not
complete and didn't easily include qualitative social, environmental
aesthetic and ethical issues (I did my PhD on it).
That was then. Now in the last 20 years the pendulum has swung the other
way. This has been good in many ways, but I suggest it has at the moment
swung too far ;-)
This is exemplified by the DRS. Since the early 90s there has been a power
shift in DRS so that its council has become dominated by academics from Art
and Design. Consequently, the DRS direction on design research has moved
away from science and much of research in design has now become overbalanced
towards art.
I suggest that in line with Don's comments there is now often a shortfall in
design research in the amount of quantification, science and mathematics
supporting design research and design theory and an over-emphasis on some
qualitative issues such as aesthetics - whilst at the same time still a
significant lack of good design research in other not so mechanical areas
such as social dynamics and politics.
Warm regards,
Terry
==
Dr Terence Love
Director
Design Out Crime & CPTED Centre
Perth, Western Australia
[log in to unmask]
www.designoutcrime.org
+61 (0)4 3497 5848
==
ORCID 0000-0002-2436-7566
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Salisbury, Martin
Sent: Monday, 3 July 2017 9:09 PM
To: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: RE: I'm confused: To my knowledge nobody ever argued against
aesthetics
Dear Don, Stephen and all,
Personally, I am more confused by the number of subject headings under which
this debate is conducted.
Don, you say 'nobody ever argued against aesthetics' . Klaus Krippendorff
wrote:
"maybe improving the lives of others is a more important aim of design than
the abstract conception of an aesthetics."
- which is where the discussion began.
Stephen-, as I'm sure you will be aware, a certain predecessor of yours,
Professor Bruce Archer, put it nicely in 1979 when writing about Design as a
Discipline (Design Studies, Volume 1, No 1). He was explaining his
motivations for entering this field (design research) and his concern about
excessive preoccupation with procedure ahead of end when using the term
'design methodology'-
"I was concerned to find ways of ensuring that the predominantly qualitative
considerations such as comfort and convenience, ethics and beauty, should be
as carefully taken into account and as doggedly defensible under attack as
predominantly quantitative considerations such as strength, cost and
durability."
(And he was a mechanical engineer)
Best wishes,
Martin
Professor Martin Salisbury
Course Leader, MA Children's Book Illustration Director, The Centre for
Children's Book Studies Cambridge School of Art
0845 196 2351
[log in to unmask]
http://www.cambridgemashow.com
http://www.anglia.ac.uk/ruskin/en/home/microsites/ccbs.html
________________________________________
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Stephen Boyd
Davis [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 9:44 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: I'm confused: To my knowledge nobody ever argued against
aesthetics
Don and all,
Just to pick up on one point, you say "if I am designing procedures,
traditional aesthetics do not apply." The essence of service design is to
recognise that procedures are often undertaken by people (though of course
often also by machines), so "traditional aesthetics" - whatever you and Lily
decide they are - do apply. The design of the "touch points", physical and
digital, through which service users and providers engage with procedures,
must be well designed. As you yourself have pointed out in relation to
industrial design, the visible surface is often the only means by which
users can infer the system they are dealing with.
One of the main reasons why chip design may not require traditional
aesthetics is surely that there is exceptionally little human interaction
with a chip.
Stephen
............................................................................
..........
Stephen Boyd Davis | Professor of Design Research Research Leader, School of
Design | Royal College of Art Kensington Gore, London SW7 2EU, United
Kingdom
www.rca.ac.uk
............................................................................
..........
>
--
Please click here to view our e-mail disclaimer
http://www.anglia.ac.uk/email-disclaimer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
