Hi Klaus and all,
Some ironies and binaries.
I have been struck by some features of the current hunting of the snark (definitions of design).
Of course, like many here, I warm to Klaus's view. "If I say it three times, it is true"
But I am also struck by the similarity in the declarative style Klaus uses—so like that of the advertising industry. Perhaps we are all in the end salespeople.
I am also struck by some odd binaries.
To quote Klause "not to dwell of significant disagreements among designers on whether aesthetics is part of it or whether it needs to be evidence based"
I find it odd to even think of the 'aesthetic' and 'evidence-based' as somehow separate realms rather than manifestations of different ways of talking about the same things.
And further on Klaus declares:
" to think out of the box of language, and to dare going where nobody has been before is what distinguishes a designer from people who merely modify what is already familiar."
I suspect, though I cannot speak outside my own little enslaving box, that most designers spend most of their working life modifying the familiar, with occasional trips (stakeholders permitting) to boldly go where no-one has been before—a kind of terra nullius (like Australia used to be thought of after Captain Cook)
I'm drawn to another false binary: between hubris and humility.
The search for a definition of design will end with a Boojum.
In the midst of the word he was trying to say,
In the midst of his laughter and glee,
He had softly and suddenly vanished away—
For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.
With due acknowledgement to Lewis Carroll, who is alluded to above,
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|