If we are opening the history books, I suggest going back to when Aristotle described what it is an architect does...
I’m always excited to see the Definition of Design topic rekindled on this list, and then I’m always disappointed in the subsequent discussion. The practice of design and its role in society is changing rapidly. Designerly modes of working have been exported to nearly every domain and sector of society, and designers are increasingly working way beyond the traditional boundaries of the profession, shaping complex intangible things like policy, services, strategy, culture, systems, social change, etc.
Faced with these changes, I hoped we would jettison the old artifact-centric and aesthetic-based definitions of design. They once felt a comfy fit, but they simply do not have the explanatory power to account for the today’s emerging landscape. As scholars, this should excite and motivate us. Design is something much bigger and more versatile than we previously believed. We should be digging deeper, rethinking core assumptions.
But instead, well...
-a
> On May 30, 2019, at 4:38 AM, eduardocorte-real_iade <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> PS. I think that, at least historically, everybody will agree that we can seriously argue that aesthetics WAS part of design.
> In Noah Webster’s(the father of Mirriam-Webster’s) dictionary of 1828 some of design (n.) meanings were:
> 4. The idea or scheme intended to be expressed by an artist; as the designs of medals.
> 5. In manufactories, the figures with which workmen enrich their stuffs, copied from painting or draughts.
> 6. In music, the invention and conduct of the subject; the disposition of every part, and the general order of the whole.”
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|