 |
 |
From Klaus: >I also feel rather uncomfortable when reflections on a fascinating issue are >countered by opponents that do not permit the many shades of gray between >the extremes. > >Apparently, the very thought that designing could be a practice that >constitutes being human is threatening some designers wishing to preserve >design as a privileged expertise of few individuals, invoking all kinds >polarities including rational/intuitive, elites/masses, >individualism/collectivism and so forth. From Kari-Hans: >Dear Lubomir, Glenn, Gunnar, > >Siding with Ken's more elaborate response, I am puzzled by consistent >breeding of the 'black-or-white' / 'either-or' positions in the >discussion. > >Why is it that we so often end up in this 'nothing or everything' >dichotomy? This seems to be a recurring obstacle in a community with [snip] >I have not seen any of the 'proponents' of the 'design-by-all' or >whatever we might call this position, advocating that 'everybody >should design everything' or 'all design should be done by laymen'. > > >However, I have seen the 'opponents' repeating that this is the >argument of the 'proponents', which has been repeatedly and fairly >patiently dismissed by the 'proponents'. By my inclusion in Kari-Hans' salutation I can only assume that I am believed to be one of the spokesmen for "nothing or everything" described here so I feel like I should respond. I do not believe I am such a spokesman nor do I believe that my post indicated that. I may be missing where the rainbow of gray shades was presented. I know that "Design By All" originated with another thread. If someone would like to direct me to posts in any other thread that would enlighten me, I would appreciate it. I reread the "Design By All" thread and am still mystified as to what it is about. There seem to be a couple of solid points: 1. Some people bravely argue for the inclusion of people affected by design in the design process and for the notion that some decision that are made by professional designers might be better made by users of design. This makes me repeat what I said in my earlier post: Duh. Is there anyone out there who would like to argue for designers ignoring others, making decisions in a vacuum, and subverting people's control over their lives in every manner possible? As a general proposition, this ranks up with "We should treat other people well" and "We should not kill or fellow humans for sport." 2. There is also an argument that design (in a broad sense of the word) is a fairly basic human activity and that it is not limited to people who have business cards that say "Designer" somewhere on them. Duh (and, I should add: So what?) One of Ken's posts on the subject rightly pointed to what seems obvious: There are some design activities that many people can do and others that fewer people can (or would want to) do. Is anyone anywhere really claiming that, as Klaus suggests, we should "usurp an activity that is common and basically human"? Who are these "designers wishing to preserve design as a privileged expertise of few individuals"? Are they straw men for an argument that nobody but a complete fool would put forth? Was there anyone in this thread (or any other) who suggested that elitism for its own sake, exclusion for the sake of personal enrichment or ego gratification, or a generalized attack on democracy in all its forms? In reviewing the thread I -do- think I made an error in interpretation: I wrote: "The moves back and forth between various senses of the word 'design,' the conflation of various stakeholders having a voice in the design process and notion that design can/should/would/would happily be done by all. . . . It's dizzying" but I admit that upon review it may be clear that nobody said anything as substantive as I implied. The strange logical dance got us all the way to the obvious. Duh and duh. Although my post attacked Philippa's introductory logic, it lauded the fact that she produced a concrete example. It raised some interesting ideas about the roles of the users of design in the design process. I thought her claims for similarity between user modification and designers' lack of real originality were slightly overstated but deserved discussion and clarification. I pointed out what I thought were some interesting questions that stem from her example. I clearly did not advocate a "black or white" or "either/or" positions. If I seemed to paint others as doing so, I was just trying to figure out what was really proposed that sustained so much conversation. Whether others think the questions I asked about Philippa's example were either interesting or on-topic, I repeat my earlier question about this thread: Huh? Gunnar -- Gunnar Swanson Design Office 536 South Catalina Street Ventura CA 93001-3625 USA +1 805 667 2200 [log in to unmask] http://www.gunnarswanson.com