Dear All: 



Further to Esra Bici´s message, I would like to say I have had some interesting feedback from various people and am slowly filling the available places.  There has been some good insight from those responding to my call.  



One respondent seemed to be a little alarmed at the use of binary terms like "wow" and "yuk".  I think that there is a lot more to aesthetics of design that such black and white terms. Indeed the terms themselves are unaesthetic. However, this topic is one which could unnerve researchers who are not professional philosophers. A little vernacular signals this.

 

Also, I think a case could be made that design is always aiming for something that is on the right side of the pleasing/not pleasing boundary.  There are objects that aimed to please and which horrified; and there are designs which had no aesthetic objectives but which ended up being pleasing. 



Another respondent suggested the task is unappealing because it might be reductionist. If I may quote this:



"1. Designers do not possess the scientific tools to study such questions



2. Designers are not interested in studying such questions (lest an algorithm or a layman become competent enough to take their job)



3. Designers have the intuitive ability to understand form and hence do not need to study it.



4. Designers/researchers may have come to the conclusion that such a study is hopeless because of the so many aspects of form and the interaction of form with many other design aspects. It might be impossible to isolate the effect of form and attempts to do so will appear artificial."



From these two points I can see a lot to discuss. It is a pretty open call so if anyone wishes to throw their hat into the ring, please step forward.



A third respondent though the debate on defining design had been covered. It has indeed but not to my satisfaction. 



One other thing is that much work on the topic has been done by Mads Nygaard Folkmann at SDU, Denmark. None of this included in my call for papers reference list, which reflects the fact this project is exploratory.



Regards,



Richard





Design Microconference 

5-7 Sept 2018, Design School Kolding, Denmark.

Call for papers.



Addressing designed form - demarcating design. 



The conference´s aim is to draw the attention of design research towards the form of designed objects by exploring the boundaries of design.   

 

Design processes can be described (e.g. the technical, procedural aspects) and design aims explained (e.g. Inclusive Design, Sustainable Design).  This is the stock of much design research. However, the core of design which is the visual is seemingly neglected other than in terms of the stimulus for a consumer response. The preferred natural science formats in design research writing tend to underplay the qualitative. Consider the structuring formula of background, literature review, hypothesis, methods, data and analysis. If the difference between design and engineering is the subjective and qualitative, is this format appropriate? Designers plan but not all planners design – does the managerial approach to design miss something critical? People solve problems through processes but sometimes the solution is just a sandwich. Is that design? 



The seminar seeks to focus on the essential in design, that which makes it distinct from other disciplines. There is considerable latitude in this call for papers for a wide variety of views, those that emphasise ethical concerns, procedure and inclusive approaches to creativity. Such wide ranging views span from Herbert Simon (1996) to the work of David Pye (1964). 



The output should be essays that can inform those researching and practicing design. They should also be useful to those learning the discipline and who wish to have a conceptual framework for form-giving and its meanings. 



Note that the question is not "what is design" but rather how can we address research on design that acknowledges its special aesthetic quality, the “wow/yuk” factor.  Buchanan´s (2001) definition: "Design is the human power of conceiving, planning and making products that serve human beings in the accomplishment of their individual and collective purposes". Is that not leaving something out? Hillier (1998) wondered if it was possible at all to address the intuitive in design (which must refer in some sense to the aesthetic/subjective). Buchanan's definition conceivably involves objects and indeed services with no obvious aesthetic quality. Much design research seems to involve this kind of product or else pays scant regard to the "wow" in design. Hillier´s question challenges those who might try to address the Wow. Would such design research become a form of art history? Would that be a problem? If it isn´t a form of art history, what would it be? Hermeneutics? 



Contributors will be asked to present their paper and to provide a detailed commentary on the work of one other participant. As such the micro-conference will be an opportunity for wide ranging and considered discussion. 



Expressions of interest are welcome prior to the submission of a draft. 



A selection of papers will be published in a peer-reviewed design journal. 





Deadlines (please note the organisers are willing to afford a degree of latitude about most of these dates barring delivery of the final paper deadline):



Full paper draft (6000 words including abstract): April 28th 2018

Notification of acceptance: May 30th 2018

Final paper: August 15 2018

Registration closes: August 30th 2018 



Registration costs €135 and is payable by August 30 th  2018



Location: Design School, Kolding, Denmark. 

Dates: 5th to 7th September.



Useful References: 

Buchanan, R (2001) Design research and the new learning". Design Issues 17 (4) 3-23

Grand, S., Jonas, W. (eds).(2012) Mapping design research 

Hillier, B. (1998)  A note on the intuiting of form: three issues in the theory of design. Environment and Planning B, Planning and Design. Anniversary Edition 1998, pp.37-40.

Herriott, R (2017) What is like to see a bat. Swedish Design Research Journal.

                      10.3384/svid.2000-964X.17113

Pye, D (1964) On the aesthetics of design. Herbert Press, London

Scott-Swann, K., Luchs, M. (2011) From the special issue editors: Product design research, 

                      past present and future. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 28:321-326. 

Simon, H (1996) Social Planning - designing the social artefact. In The Science of the 

                      Artificial, 139-141, 153-167. MIT 



Ulrich, K.T. (2006)  “Aesthetics in Design,” from Ulrich, Karl T., Design: Creation of Artifacts in

Society,.



oOo



















-----------------------------------------------------------------

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

-----------------------------------------------------------------