Hi Terry again,
I would prefer that you had choose the 5th meaning "In manufactories, the figures with which workmen enrich their stuffs, copied from painting or draughts. “
By the way, the first meaning from the same 1828 dictionary (almost 200 years ago) was:
"1. A plan or representation of a thing by an outline; sketch; general view; first idea represented by visible lines; as in painting or architecture.”
What seems to be separating us is, first, this “first idea”.
What you appear to stand for in your “overall activity of designing” is precisely what comes after the “first idea”.
For me, this “outlined” first idea lacks the materiality of its future implementation, development and production. It is, by its nature, purely aesthetically perceived because its absence of materiality. Your prototyping example is a step further away from this first idea. So, a step further away from the essence of design (It can be made by another person than the one that had the idea and externalized it). So, if we assume that design is an intellectual activity, we must assume that the first externalized idea is closer to design as an intelectual activity and thus, in its firstsness, aesthetical by nature. And this, Arjun, by the way, in my opinion, is going to the core of the questions that allowed design spread throughout so many activities (all intelectual).
Terry wrote:
>
> What I was suggesting is that it is really useful to get a clearer research understanding of all the details of the design activity (especially when one is exploring the details of design cognition and automation).
>
> To do this, I propose it is helpful in research and theory making terms to view the aesthetic activities as epistemologically distinct from the overall activity of designing (still with the idea that aesthetics are a part of designing) and avoid blurring 'designing and aesthetics' into a single muddy conceptual hole.
So, it looks like a bit different from " I'm seriously arguing that aesthetics is NOT part of design.”
And since you reason "still with the idea that aesthetics are a part of designing”, I might agree with you in "avoid blurring 'designing and aesthetics' into a single muddy conceptual hole" if the research and theory on design would leave out the elements that can not, by any means, be epistemologically connected with aesthetics.
so, in the end, I agree with you.
warm regards,
Eduardo Corte-Real
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|