Dear João,
To use your example, love may (hopefully) pervade a father-child relationship, but it is possible to have a father child relationship without love and also love may exist outside father-child relationships. Like design and aesthetics, not only are they different entities, they do not have a necessary and sufficient relations. Hence in research terms, they are best considered different conceptual entities.
So, .... as a researcher and someone who makes epistemologically formal theories,
What do you see the epistemological differences between the concept of the activity of designing and the concept of the property of aesthetic value?
Do they differ in any ways?
If they do differ, then I suggest in research terms it is important to treat them as different conceptual entities.
If you feel not, then I would be grateful of a formal explanation.
If they don't differ for people in some design disciplines, then perhaps design researchers could drop the use of the word design for those fields and replace it with aesthetics as it would be the exact equivalent?
That would enable the word design to be used for those disciplines that do not regard design as identical to aesthetics.
Finally, just as an aside, if beauty cannot be studied (your post re Parthenon, maternal love etc) then what the heck is the discipline of Aesthetics doing if it is ' is a branch of Philosophy concerned with the study of the principles behind the nature and appreciation of *beauty*'. Should it perhaps be closed down as irrelevant and wasting people's time?
Best wishes,
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of João Ferreira
Sent: Thursday, 30 May 2019 7:38 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: A definition of design must also exclude as well as include
Dear Terry,
In my reply I will argue for the impossibility of separating aesthetics from design.
In short, Aesthetics is a branch of Philosophy concerned with the study of the principles behind the nature and appreciation of *beauty*.
I care not for the discussion if Beauty is found in things or in people (in the eye of the beholder); I do not have the philosophical tools to settle that dispute, let us just agree that beauty is a phenomena that exists somewhere in the process of people interacting with things. If you grant me that point, and for the sake of brevity, I will refer to beauty as a property of things.
So, let's take beauty as a property of things like love is a property of a father-son relationship. There are many aspects to a father-son relationship, like there are many aspects to the manufacturing of a medal.
There are numerous practical/functional tasks a father must do in the unfolding of a father-son relationship. Diaper changing, for instance, is something a father does with (dramatically) differing degrees of delicacy and effectiveness. In fact, the same action could probably be conducted with much higher degrees of effectiveness and delicacy by the son's caretaker in daycare (I'm drawing the example from personal experience), in practical terms the caretaker is faster, more delicate (in terms of softness of touch and economy of movement) which means she is functionally more efective than the kid's father.
So, notice how on both occasions the diaper was changed, therefore altering the present situation into a preferred one. But there is an essential difference between the two actions; the father's diaper-changing is animated by that complex combination of emergence of meaning, care, responsibility towards others, happiness, poignancy, fear of death, and melancholy we call *love*. (Of course, a caretaker may develop intense and caring relationships — most often do — with the children under their care, but paternal or maternal love is something else entirely).
It would be hard to argue that there isn't something universally moving about paternal our maternal *love-in-action*. Love cannot be extracted from the mundane comings and goings of everyday life because any father's action towards his son is ignited by the fire of paternal love. Likewise, you cannot extract beauty from the Parthenon and place it under the microscope for analysis — beauty is a part of the Greek temple like irony is a constituent of wit. If you wanted to design a witticism would you be able to separate astute observation, from irony and from humour?
Returning to fathers and sons. We cannot separate love from all other dimensions of a father-son relationship, love pervades the relationship and manifests itself over and over again in ways great and small. It is neither manifested in a grand gesture not is it found only in the smaller ones.
Further, it cannot be added at the end of the *process* (like landing a kiss on the forehead after the diaper is changed) love is either there throughout or it is not.
Like beauty in design.
Of course, this raises a (ontological) problem, because love is both a catalyst for and a property of a relationship. Be that as it may, how is one to describe a father-son relationship without mentioning love?
(Sometimes, tragically, by referring to its absence).
Same goes for beauty and things.
Not quite a formal theory, I admit, but perhaps the beginnings of a substantive one (Glaser & Strauss, 2017).
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017). *Discovery of grounded theory:
Strategies for qualitative research*. Routledge.
'best,
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 12:28 PM David Sless <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Hi Terry,
> I can only speak about the fields I know and work in which, as it
> happens, are all the field you mention, and the answer is most definitely yes.
>
> David
>
> --
>
> On 30/5/19, 7:51 pm, "PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD
> studies and related research in on behalf of Terence Love" <
> [log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> Thank you for your message. I understand what you wrote and
> suggest that it is similar to what I was suggesting.
>
> Would you say that aesthetics is ALWAYS a NECESSARY part of all
> design activity across all the 800 or however many fields of design?
>
> For example when I produce software code architecture (designs for
> how something might be programmed), or business process optimisation
> designs it's not that obvious that aesthetics is a necessary part of
> the design activity at all.
>
> If in typesetting a magazine I'm managing the words to
> space-available aspects of news stories, its not obvious that this bit
> of design activity involves any aesthetics.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Best regards,
> Terence
> ==
> Dr Terence Love,
> School of Design and Built Environment, Curtin University, Western
> Australia
> CEO, Design Out Crime and CPTED Centre
> PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks, Western Australia 6030
> [log in to unmask]
> [log in to unmask]
> +61 (0)4 3497 5848
> ORCID 0000-0002-2436-7566
> ==
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
> related research in <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of David Sless
> Sent: Thursday, 30 May 2019 9:40 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: A definition of design must also exclude as well as
> include
>
> On 29/5/19, 7:37 pm, Terence Love" <[log in to unmask] on
> behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I'm seriously arguing that aesthetics is NOT part of design. That
> is It would be better if research definitions of design explicitly
> excluded aesthetics.
>
> I too must dissent from this provocative and unusual exclusion.
> But I do so from a pragmatic professional position. In information
> design we have created a suite of standards against which to measure
> the effectiveness of our work. These are analogous to engineering
> design standards but specifically designed for our field.
>
> Over half the standards are to do with avoiding the rubbish bin.
> Because there is so much information circulating in our society, most
> people have developed information avoidance strategies. We have to
> meet these information avoidance strategies head on and ensure that
> what we produce gets attention.
>
> Some of these standards are concerned with issues that are part of
> the range of things that come under the heading of aesthetics. If we
> neglect them, our work ends up in the real or virtual dustbin, making
> a contribution to landfill and digital waste which in turn lead to
> environmental pollution, energy wastage, loss of productivity, and
> increases in social inequity and disadvantage.
>
> I vote for keeping aesthetics in.
>
> BTW, if you want to look at our standards and why we have them go to:
>
> https://communication.org.au/standards-communication-information-design/
> https://communication.org.au/standards-getting-attention/
> https://communication.org.au/standards-engaging-people/
>
> David
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
João Ferreira
REDES - Research & Education in Design
Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Arquitetura, CIAUD
00351 967 089 437
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|