It has been seen in the recent response to Ken Friedman by Bruce Moon how a
dissatisfaction with production-based models leads to the search for
alternative theories of design. Post-modern critiques of the 'scientific
method' embraced by Modernism challenge its claims to objectivity and its
notions of truth and rationality. Thus from Simon's "..courses of action
aimed at changing existing situations into
preferred ones." follows the quotation from Kuhn
that: "each (theory) represents the ideological preferences of the
theoriser/s. .......the extension of some (abstract) belief system.."
I would like to add to the thread by pointing to what I perceive as the
contemporary view.
Developments in computer-generated graphic interfaces have particularly
stimulated new ways of thinking about design. (I refer for example to the
visualization of phenomena such as weather
patterns, biological systems and molecular structures: complex systems in
which many
independent agents act with each other to produce spontaneous
self-organization.) Inherent in these (contemporary) views of design seems
to be an acceptance that the world is not entirely a " construct" of mind as
it was understood by postmodernists. Mind is itself a part of a larger
dynamic (or 'Nature'), which is objectively discernible outside ourselves in
so far as it has perceptible effects on, taking Bruce Moon's example, our
mental reflection.
This also differs from the modernist notion of objectivity insofar as it is
now implicitly accepted that man cannot separate from his surroundings
through theory, but that theory is created and exists in the context of its
arising.
Christopher Alexander's more recent theories (demonstrated in the
description of patterns as objects rich in information, which interact much
in the way of living organisms) may be indicative of this contemporary
momentum. This is rooted in an understanding
that, like living organisms, design is the product of a complex
communicational and informational process. The extreme constructuralist
position, in which no knowledge can ultimately be proven and that therefore
all design is entirely subjective and self-referential, may well be
increasingly eclipsed by a view which maintains that design cannot be
separated from its physical, climatic, cultural and political context: both
its meaning and design development are integrally interdependent with
context. The design process not only includes the consideration of the
physical, economic and cultural backdrop to the building (I write as an
architect), but must be seen in a wider perspective of the dynamic
interaction of all groups and individuals who contribute to its creation,
use and maintenance. Or as a computer scientist writes: " Programs live and
grow, and their inhabitants--the programmers--need to work with that program
the way the farmer works with the homestead" (Gabriel 1998).
Bruce Moon's final remark: "Maybe the reflections on a 'Theory of Design' in
this forum constitute the theory of design!!!" may in fact hold the key for
theory's current position: theories may grow and form through an interaction
and agglomeration of distributed ideas. The question of their fitness for
purpose is answered if they are seen as existing wholly within the context
in which they arise. While this implies that universal consensus on a single
unifying theory of design is probably impossible to achieve, it does not
preclude the possibility of that theory existing.
Michael Mullins
Durban
South Africa
http://www.und.ac.za/und/arch/arch/mfm/homepage.html
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|