This is a response to Ken Fiedmanıs question about appropriate length and some further commentary.
The longer pieces for me have been "keepers," pieces to print out for further thought. I consider them useful resources, appreciate the caring and craft they represent, and intend to pursue some of their references for the winter term Advanced Design Theory class I teach here at the University of Oregon. Iıve also been enjoying the shorter more conversational responses, so I suppose that you can generally put me down as grateful for the possibility of an international dialog on design theory - not a subject my next door neighbor and I talk much about.
It seems to me that we are all postmoderists culturally whether we like it or not. We think and write and design in a part of modernity that is able to look back on and label a "modern period" even though we are still under its influence. We have a slightly different take on rationality and design methods than we did in the 70s. Itıs hard today to ignore such changes as the post-structural undermining of the sign and the greater awareness of power relationships (for example the question of length of response). And then there is the de-centering of the self; new developments in prototype theory and metaphor; the evolving conception of objectivity in the new science; the social construction of problems and agency in design, to name only some of the influences on design theory today. Iıd be interested in additions, subtractions and responses to this obviously partial list.
Theories arenıt true. They are supposed to be useful (even amusing). As reflections on past experience they try to get us closer to the mark more often than the hit and miss of the seat of our pants. As design teachers, our criticism is based on a working body of theory whether we are aware of it or not. Better for both teacher and student to be more aware so that the conversation can be even more useful.
Jerry Diethelm
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|