Maybe you are getting me wrong... ”terms” are not static, and they can mean many different things. Also, many phenomena can be referred to with several different terms. Which one is right, and how they develop, is context, use and socially dependent.
My wordng ”misuse” and ”misunderstanding” relates to that the use of the term ”design” reiterated by the articulation of ”creative industries” often refers _only_ to design as formgiving.
I don’t think we need a new term, but that we need a critical conversation on the term, its meanings, its usage, and how to help develop these where it is appropriate.
Another example.
In Sweden (again) the term ”service design” has gained a significant amount of attraction in public service. In other contexts (countries, businesses, countries etc) ”design thinking”, ”ux” is used for the same, or similar, purposes. However, what this ”service design” refers to in practice in those public organisations are certain ways of working that are common to designing in many other disciplines, and also easily would be partly referred to as Scanidinavian ”cooperative design”.
(Which in the American context became ”participatory design”. And how is that, then, different from co-design?)
It has been a long jurney to establish design as a term that entails the outcomes, results and processes of designing. When we will also see that the effects of designing are included, will be interesting to see.
That is, design>formgiving & design>designing & design>...
All the best
Stefan
> 24 juni 2018 kl. 18:15 skrev Gunnar Swanson <[log in to unmask]>:
> On Jun 24, 2018, at 11:35 AM, Don Norman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Look, making things attractive is an important part of design. But that is
> not all we do. More and more, it is a minor part of what we, the
> profession, does. At the UC San Diego Design Lab we help design public
> health initiatives and procedures
Certainly, renaming "our field" makes more sense than trying to wage a fight for the right to a word with at least one well-established meaning.
I am fascinated by the various statements on this list claiming trends in design. Who is this "we, the profession" that is being used as a measure of professional design trends?
The logic of "People assume design = x" to "they are wrong because some design ≠ x" to "Those of us who do design that ≠ x do less y than those who do design that = x" to "therefore, designers don’t do a lot of y" is fascinating. There’s a gap in there; maybe you need help from a Modernist graphic designer to make your argument into a perfect circle.
> On Jun 24, 2018, at 12:07 PM, Stefan Holmlid <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> However. Why not call what they are writing about... art? Or applied art? Or creative design? Or formgiving? Or plain and easy... fashion?
> (Btw, Creative industries is also an arena where design is being misused and reiterates a misunderstanding of design.
Yes. Let’s tell the world that they are not allowed to use language as they know it because it contradicts our desires for the use of language. *That* would demonstrate the value of design.
Gunnar
Gunnar Swanson
East Carolina University
graphic design program
http://www.ecu.edu/cs-cfac/soad/graphic/index.cfm
[log in to unmask]
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
1901 East 6th Street
Greenville NC 27858
USA
http://www.gunnarswanson.com
[log in to unmask]
+1 252 258-7006
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|