I sincerely hope this discussion is not taking time away from the students.
On Thu, 30 May 2019, 17:40 ecr gmail, <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Lubomir,
> I really don’t know if your rant on dictionaries and the past had anything
> to do with my post, but since it replies to it, I assume it is.
> So first,
> I’m not claiming that Noah Webster had a perfect definition of design.
> For the matter, I am not claiming any validity of any definition of Design
> in 1828 can be valid today as, if so, valid in 1828.
> I’m sure I will not try even to convince you that the 1800’s were an
> important period o look upon related to ours. Words like technology and
> methodology were coined in that time but maybe it is not interesting to
> understand why. A first industrial revolution was pumping in full power, A
> National Academy of Design was founded in New York and a Government School
> of Design was founded in London… Maybe it is not interesting for you, but,
> for me, a part (the major part) of being a scholar is to be able to look
> directly to the past.
> Secondly, by conjuring Webster, I was not conjuring a general public
> dictionary, nor a a dead voice, I was trying to remind Terry that even if
> he may claim that epistemologically Aesthetics have nothing to do with
> design, that was not the case a couple of centuries ago. And maybe it is in
> that period where we can find the roots for whatever situation we are on
> today. I think that doing this is part of building up a notion about a term
> and not a word.
>
> So, by understanding better that aesthetics was, in fact, the deepest
> conceptual root of design in the early XIX century, Terry could understand
> better why can he can claim, today, that it has nothing to do with it.
> (And, I humbly think that I was doing what an historian would do: look upon
> sources of the time. If you want more references other than a dictionary on
> that period you can easily remember several posts of mine about it.)
>
> Having arrived here, I’m not sure if you are trying to exclude History
> from this discussion, or if you are all for it.
> If you are trying to exclude history from a scholarly discussing about a
> concept or a term, that’s OK with me, but I’m out (as I have been for so
> long in this list).
>
> Since you are kin on the difference of words and terms, just to friendly
> nag you a little bit more, here follows a quotation from Sir Henry Wotton
> in the 17th century (I’m afraid you will find nothing relevant in English
> on design prior to the 16th century):
>
> "Therefore first (to beginne with Picture) we are to observe whether it
> bee well drawne, (or as more elegant artisans tearme it) well Design’d;"
> (Wotton 1623, 87) Wotton, Henry. 1623. The Elements of Architecture.
> Facsimile Edition, Farnborough, Hants: Gregg International Publishers.
>
> Warm regards,
> Eduardo Corte-Real
> IADE- Universidade Europeia, Lisboa
>
> > No dia 30/05/2019, às 14:55, Lubomir Savov Popov <[log in to unmask]>
> escreveu:
> >
> > Hello every one,
> >
> > I have a problem with the method of thinking in this discussion and in
> particular with the reference to general public dictionaries. These
> dictionaries are intended for communicating a convention to the general
> public. They are not intended as terminological resources in disciplinary
> or scientific (or you name it) discourses. There is a difference between a
> word and a term. General dictionaries are about words. Specialized
> disciplinary reference sources are about terms.
> >
> > When we talk in this scholarly discussion, list we should refer to
> scholarly dictionaries/glossaries/you name it. Scholarly handbooks,
> encyclopedias. The reason: we are talking about concepts and terms, not
> words. Leave the words and their stories for everyday parlance. Use in your
> scholarly debates scholarly reference sources.
> >
> > I come from a scholarly tradition where discussions and debates are
> informed by the conventions developed in the academic community. Academics
> spend life time working on a particular concept or term. They understand
> what is a concept, what is a term, how are they produced, defined, refined,
> and how should they be used. They don't support their arguments with 15th
> century documents because they know that in the 15th century people and
> activities were different. It is about culture, and the evolution of
> culture. Design today is different than design was fifty years ago. The
> thinking about design today is different. Both design and its many fields
> evolve, cross-pollinate, morph, mutate, and so on; and so should be the
> concepts and definitions of design. And so should be our discussion about
> these concepts, definitions, and terms.
> >
> > Right now this discussion is ridiculous, and the fact that it has drawn
> so much attention and so many participants, this fact informs me that this
> is the state of the art in the design research community. It is sad. I am
> sorry to say this, but there were ridiculous visions about design. And
> people insist, and persist, and fight to defend them. I can understand that
> someone might propose a one-sided conceptualization. But after they are
> reminded, they can wisely get the feedback and continue musing at a higher
> level, using the feedback.
> >
> > Please consider my rant as a friendly outburst. I mean friendly, I want
> that we are friends. I know that the people on this list are among the best
> and the brightest in the design research community. But at the same time,
> take a minute, count to 10 (or 100?) and try to see the discussion in a new
> light.
> >
> > Thank you very much,
> >
> > Lubomir
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
> related research in <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of ecr gmail
> > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 9:02 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: A definition of design must also exclude as well
> as include
> >
> > Hi Terry, João, Arjun, David,
> >
> > First of all let me clarify that I don’t believe that Noah Webster was
> thinking about prototypes when he mentioned medals. I believe that he was
> mentioning precisely a drawing before even a prototype. That’s why he
> writes: "The idea or scheme”.
> >
> > Also I must clarify that was not saying that all first ideas are
> aesthetical.
> > What I was saying was that a first idea externalized (in Webster’s days
> by a “drawing", "a scheme", "a sketch" or "general view") has a value that
> can not be much more than aesthetic due to its almost immateriality. It’s
> Ethical endeavour starts right after its formalization.
> >
> > Finally, I don’t think that "almost everyone on this list is using the
> term aesthetic in its recent sense to mean beauty”. The level of education
> on this list indicates a rather more elaborated comprehension of the term
> aesthetics. Which may differ from people to people but it is way more
> complex than simply beauty.
> >
> > Having this in mind, I think that the most promising meaning of Design
> in 1828, and still relevant to us was:
> >
> > “ 6. In music, the invention and conduct of the subject; the disposition
> of every part, and the general order of the whole.”
> >
> > What a Beautiful metaphor for today ! (I’m saying Beautiful on purpose)
> >
> > warm regards,
> >
> > Eduardo CR
> >
> >> No dia 30/05/2019, às 11:59, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]>
> escreveu:
> >>
> >> Hi Eduardo,
> >>
> >> Yes, I'm assuming that the 'first idea' is only a part of the activity
> of designing.
> >>
> >> A question. What is there to suggest that any idea or first thought is
> intrinsically and essentially aesthetical?
> >>
> >> I suggest many 'first thoughts' are not essentially aesthetic and some
> first thoughts have no aesthetic dimension at all - unless you are using
> the words to mean something different?
> >>
> >> I'd like to see the argument for your claim that first thoughts are in
> their 'firstness, aesthetical by nature'. This is not at all obvious to me
> nor does it align with any theory of cognition I'm aware of. It is the
> equivalent of saying that all first thoughts are functional in nature,
> which I would also have problems with . Again unless you are using the
> words differently?
> >>
> >> I'm aware of the original meaning of 'aesthetic' as only referring to
> perception via feelings. This was before the Art marketers got hold of the
> term and perverted it into only meaning beauty.
> >>
> >> I'm happy to decide to use the term aesthetic in either way, but I
> suggest one can't have both at the same time as they are contradictory.
> Also I suspect that almost everyone on this list is using the term
> aesthetic in its recent sense to mean beauty.
> >>
> >> Warm regards,
> >> 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
> >> eduardocorte-real_iade
> >> Sent: Thursday, 30 May 2019 6:29 PM
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: A definition of design must also exclude as well as
> >> include
> >>
> >> 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
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|