Dear Richard
Simon's definition of design is that activity which arrives at a preferred state of affairs - and if an aesthetically pleasing artificat is a preferred state in comparison with one that does not have that quality, then it appears ot me Simon's definition is sufficiently broad enough to capture that.
Indeed a problem with Simon's definition for me is precisely because, whilst generally true, it is so broad that it is not entirely insightful, but I would agree with Ken it is a helpful point of departure. Simon's account of design gets interesting after he lays out this definition to unpack how design sometimes meanders and is openly attentive to new goals that arise from unintended because unforeseen (bounded rationality) consequences, and surfaces new preferences that might desirable, possibly. So this is a rather interesting account of design if defensible - design opening our repertoire of preferences, akin to a kind of liberal arts education.
Simon uses design often interchangeably with engineering - and in this respect design or engineering is an interesting activity insofar as human formation is concerned - not the typical technically-rational goal oriented activity, but also one which changes or transforms the agent itself.
The question regarding how one defines design reminds me of the problem we have in jurisprudence - how does one define the law? It has been clear for sometime that when defining a (social) phenomenon it was not useful to arrive by adduction the common denominator stuff, so to speak, that instantiate all the versions of that phenomenon - you would arrive at something so thin albeit true that it was not insightful, or else you might not arrive at any such a common collection of stuff if these instantiations are unified by a kind of family resemblance. It was Hart's breakthrough to suggest that legal theorists adopt the internal point of view of officials, for whom the law was a matter of rules and not something coercive (as Austin has previously defined the law) thereby suggesting that one viewpoint was more important than another for discerning what came to be called a focal definition, or a definition that was more important and significant than another. Still this is generally very unstable unless a defensible criteria for identifying one viewpoint as more important than another - for this reason john Finnis argued that definitions of focal senses of a term could only be achieved if you brought ethics into the picture - an ethics which identified the important things, and hence the important viewpoint that had these things in mind or which would relate these important things with the phenomenon. Only such a focal meaning was worth developing - because it was a basis for criticizing peripheral instantiations of the term.
I am inclined to think that this is one way the definition of design could proceed. But the difficulty with that is that you need to also have a defensible ethical theory - something which is difficult to get a consensus on amongst design theorists. Still, as you point out, it is not entirely controversial to think "aesthetics" is a fundamental good or value, and hence is very important, and any focal account of design would include a mention or relation to that good. Further more, unlike jurisprudence, design itself may be a ground for this set of ethical norms or judgments, if Simon is to be believed. Afterall, design itself opens up our sets of preferences and helps discern what we might enjoy having - and this welcome for our own flourishing. So rather than have to import an ethical theory from another field, perhaps design itself is the field which can supply this evaluative criteria for discerning its own focal meaning.
J
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Richard Herriott
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 9:46 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [Marketing Mail] This is still design
In reply to Martin Salisbury:
" My answer would be 'no'. In my humble opinion, most intelligent impartial observers would be very surprised by a definition of 'design' or 'designer' that did not include reference to aesthetics.," wrote Martin.
Indeed. This is what I have been driving at and also what bothers me about Simonīs definition.
National Institute of Education (Singapore) http://www.nie.edu.sg
DISCLAIMER : The information contained in this email, including any attachments, may contain confidential information.
This email is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) listed above. Unauthorised sight, dissemination or any other
use of the information contained in this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email by fault, please
notify the sender and delete it immediately.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
