Dear All,
I have a question, probably a strain of questions, to all of the readers on this list.
I refer especially as well to the discussion thread where Paul Russel outlined what he and 'we' intended to outline and to talk about.
Sustainable design and its inherent discourse isn't sufficient as all the other terms and concepts Paul listed. The terms
world centered design, humanity centered design, world design responsibility,... these are trials (I did understand) to discuss something which comprehends all activities on Paul's list:
'- general environmental sustainability independent from the design literature
- design for environmental sustainability
- approaches to humanitarian development and poverty alleviation independent of application to design
- designing specifically for human and social wellbeing in relation to impoverished countries/communities
- approaches to encouraging and promoting the retention of sociocultural values and practices independent from design literature
- guidance for the undertaking of design which encourages the retention of sociocultural values and practices
- general design guidelines for including all people beyond poverty alleviation and exploitation (e.g. gender, gender identity, age, wealth, physiological and psychological capacity, education, etc., etc.)
- work on designing for positive emotions, health and wellbeing not in relation to impoverished countries/communities
- work on designing positively for non-humans'
Russel, P. (2020, March 9). Retrieved from [log in to unmask]&P=66492" target="_blank">https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind2003&L=PHD-DESIGN&O=D&X=907DDA91A1280BF43B&[log in to unmask]&P=66492
I am trying to enhance our discourse by pointing to another aspect.
May be we have overseen something major when we teach and conceptualize design?
I frame it for the moment as: Apoptosis and Necrosis in Design
The design process etc., at least in 95% of the schools I know of, students, we, are getting the message design is... following a purpose (by selecting a method) generating solutions, changing the existing. Sorry for the simplification!
There is an array of presentation in papers and variations of such processes in many disciplines, but I haven't seen yet the following discussed.
(If I oversee, please help me here, I would be very happy for directing me to these publications.)
The concept 'Apoptosis'.
Apoptosis is used in biology to describe the development in organisms. It is the death in-between which is needed to reach another stage. There is no development without Apoptosis.
I quote:
'Apoptosis can be differentiated from other forms of cell death, termed necrosis, that may occur in response to injury by toxins, physical stimuli, or ischemia.'
Apoptosis: definition, mechanisms, and relevance to disease Saikumar, Pothana et al. The American Journal of Medicine, Volume 107, Issue 5, 489 - 506, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9343(99)00259-4
The former quote defines as well the death initiated by the environment, which is defined as necrosis as opposed to apoptosis.
Apoptosis is the necessary death for change otherwise there is no development, there is no design'?
We usually look at the thing we want to change? We see 'it' as a problem, we change it for a better cause.
Theoretically we don't look at the 'apoptosis', as the death which is needed to change. Probably design museums care more about apoptosis (artifacts) as we do.
I am testing further, thinking about design processes and solutions, we might have a lot of necrosis, since the 'death' is often generated by outside factors,... as an example, the feasibility is not given, the economic factors, outside factors are influencing designs, ...changes from outside. Necrosis?
On a material, product level we have Apoptosis ideologically consumed by recycling and sustainability.
Changing a material to a thing, to a new thing, or even from 'cradle to cradle'. Where is design, and if there is design, where is Apoptosis?
Sorry if I do confuse. It is trial whether the concept of Apoptosis and Necrosis might help us.
I do go further:
On a sign/symbolic level, there is already an array of images and messages we are confronted with using our media channels. Brands disappear..apoptosis and necrosis concepts might help to understand, decide, what do we keep and we we have to get rid off. What has to die, to disappear?
On an interface level, I can see that apoptosis concept and the possible differentiation playing a role. Example: we don't want to get lost within endless interface possibilities. To give orientation we keep the departure screens?
On a network level, a system level, within a social setting, a social death is a known concept and gets more important in the recent years. There are companies which die, organizations disappear, and we can find a more literature in the past years, like: The mortality of companies, Madeleine I. G. Daepp, Marcus J. Hamilton, Geoffrey B. West and Luís M. A. Bettencourt, Published:06 May 2015https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2015.0120
Is there research on the Apoptosis of organizations? Probably...
On a project level, a 'death' is known, since we start with projects and we don't know whether we can sustain the project and we change, leaving solutions behind.
But I am not sure, whether Apoptosis plays a role in project management etc., project design?
I know of an increasing fail festivals!
On a discourse level a death can be stated, if there are no documents left (artifacts)?
(And if you think in universal terms, there anyway nothing disappearing - a little joke from my side).
Sorry this is only a first idea, ... I am testing some thoughts.
I used Klaus Krippendorff's trajectory of artificiality to guide the metaphors.
(Krippendorff, Klaus. The Semantic Turn: A New Foundation for Design. Boca Raton: CRC Press, (2006a).)
We design environments and as a result, unexpected deaths happen, species disappear.
We are designing species, plants animals, ... now humans. Where is the apoptosis we take in account?
I didn't see whether the disappearing origin ever played a role in design theory? The concept of Apoptosis isn't tested, is it?
We probably find fragments within the 'sustainable design + Universal Design + Humanitarian Design + Positive Design + Design for Wellbeing, and more discussion. (I do refer to the post from Paul Russel before)
Apoptosis and Sustainable Design is contradictory, isn't it?
Is such a process death in design theory reflected?
When we are changing existing situations. Is the death consciously accepted, is it an Apoptosis or an Necrosis? Does these terms help us in our responsibility, in our design decisions?
Is such an 'apoptosis' concept needed, dealing with interactions, with species, with complex systems?
Do we need to reflect such death's within our design process discourse? What do we leave behind, what do we kill, changing a situation?
Does the concept of Apoptosis and Necrosis help to act more responsible, since it provides a more comprehensive view of the design implications, phenomenons, processes, epistemes?
I am for sure such a metaphor, using con concepts from biology might not be logical, rather hermeneutical. I take this differentiation from Snodgras when he is comparing logical and metaphorical metaphors:
'A hermeneutical metaphor, by contrast, is one which is broad and flexible enough to give an account of the design process both as a whole and as a complex of interacting parts.’
(Snodgrass, Adrian, and Richard Coyne. ‘Models, Metaphors and the Hermeneutics of Designing.’ Design Issues 9, no. 1 (1992): 56–74.)
Thanks for your patience and help.
Prof. Dr. Jurgen Faust
[log in to unmask]
Macromedia University Munich
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
