JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for DRS Archives


DRS Archives

DRS Archives


DRS@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DRS Home

DRS Home

DRS  August 1999

DRS August 1999

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

A theory of design!

From:

[log in to unmask] (Wolfgang Jonas)

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask] (Wolfgang Jonas)

Date:

Wed, 4 Aug 1999 14:56:52 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (98 lines)

Dear colleagues and friends,

I agree with Ken Friedmanīs view that there can be and there should be a
general theory of design comprising everything which fits into SIMONīs
definition of designing as transforming a situation into a preferred one.
Who has the authority today to tell what is design in the "narrow" sense
and what is design in a "broader" sense? I think it is a futile effort
trying to define the boundaries of the professional field. Practice is far
ahead.

The question is how to achieve at this ambitious goal of a theory of
design? What should be the basic elements of such a theory? Can it be a
theory in the scientific sense? What about the humanities?
One of the most counter-productive consequences of the still vivid "2
cultures" dualism in design are fierce struggles as to the dominance,
mainly from the side of the humanities vs. the sciences, with claims of
(e.g.) "history, theory and criticism" to be the core of the new field
(MARGOLIN 1998). The blind spots caused by the own background are
overlooked here (and in any other effort to fix the basis).
Contributions will come from both the humanities and the sciences. Fights
for predominance are futile, because we will experience the emergence of
something new, a kind of "3rd culture" (BROCKMAN 1996), the culture of the
artificial. The working / research process will be different, the methods
used will be different, the outcomes will be different. The uniqueness has
to be distinguished and indicated and communicated as precisely as possible
in order to gain a status of autonomy comparable to that of the established
disciplines. We are far away from that.

So far, there are no foundations, but at best elements of a "science of the
artificial". SIMONīs contributions are part of it, of course, but they are
not useful in all their aspects and implications. There will be no stable
identity but only a dynamic one which is permanently re-established in
communicative feedback practice. The dynamics is caused by the fact that
designing and design as a discipline is a kind of interface activity
between moving areas: the context (cultural, technological, etc.) and the
subject of designing (the system). This refers to SIMON again. There seems
to be structural self-similarity of design as a discipline and design as a
problem-solving process.

Design theory is design! We should distinguish a structural meta-level of
"strong theories" (Findeli 1998) which is able to conceptualize this
dynamic "nature" of the discipline and a processual, operative level of
"weak theories", or "small theories" or methods.

Maybe, in the future, a kind of "foundation" might crystallize from this
dynamic process. Or maybe not.

The concept of "science" is preoccupied. In consequence its use for design
would imply the realization of the ambitious project to redefine designing
as the model of scientific research (GLANVILLE 1982). So, provisionally
(which might last forever), we should rather talk of a dynamic (highly
specialized)  social system for the creation of the artificial, the
exploration of the new. And we should keep in mind that the specialization
does NOT refer to any one traditional disciplinary fields but to relations
between them.

One of the consequences of this permanent shift might be that there is (and
never will be) anything like progress in design. There is fit (between the
context / environment and the artifact / system) at best. Maybe we are a
discipline of professional dillettantism. And maybe we should stop
complaining about that...


P.S.:
I wrote several paper on this subject, e.g.:
- Viable Structures and Generative Tools - an approach towards "designing
designing" in: "contextual design - design in contexts" the european
academy of design, Stockholm 23, 24 and 25 April 1997 (accessible via my
homepage)
- "A Scenario for Design - or how to become a discipline?" to be published
in Design Issues
- "On the Foundations of a "Science of the Artificial"" to be presented at
the Helsinki conference, Sept. 99


So much for now,

Wolfgang Jonas


Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Jonas
Prozessdesign
Hochschule für Kunst und Design Halle
Postfach 200 252
D-06003 Halle / Saale
Germany

[log in to unmask]
www.snafu.de/~jonasw







%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
October 2019
August 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
November 2018
September 2018
July 2018
May 2018
November 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
September 2016
August 2016
June 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
June 2015
May 2015
March 2015
September 2014
August 2014
June 2014
May 2014
February 2014
December 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
November 2012
October 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
November 2011
September 2011
August 2011
June 2011
May 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
October 1998
September 1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager