 |
 |
I have been silent thus far but when you touch the design of an interior, I am interested, as I am both an interior design educator and a practicing interior designer. I would propose that in all of these conversations you are combining both human interaction and physical space with physical object designs. Therefore, perhaps abstractions and theories are limited ways of describing what is occurring, which involves human social activity, and this complicates the discussion, in the way that Klaus Krippendorff suggests. For example, I do not see my role as an interior designer as solely providing design for physical artefacts ( the stage). Rather, I would suggest that we ( as interior designers) design a physical framework( the theatre) within which we promote certain human activities and interactivities, one of which is the inter-relationship between the audience and the stage.But we do so in the sense that Kari-Hans suggest, to create a 'feeling', an ambiance that affects all of the human senses. I would agree with Klaus that all we can do is create a backdrop for the human social activities and human perceptions to emerge( we cannot 'know' what human perceptions are); however, with critical and complex understanding of the nature of human activities, we can also affect human reactions and acceptance or rejection of spaces and activities ( as in a store or restaurant design, when two people sit down to enjoy a meal). I would suggest that when I create an interior space, it is virtual in the sense that it remains an idea, until I transform these 'virtual' ideas into a buildable 'reality' within which humans will interact, and where human perceptions and reactions will emerge.Thus the physical is not only physical; it becomes 'live' and in movement and theories about abstraction and artefact apply differently and alongside other theories and knowledges, which require further exploration.In other words, in my own dissertation, I have uncovered that interior design is more about aesthetic meanings held by users , rather aesthetic categories ascribed to physical buildings or objects. These meanings are a part of what interior design is about, when it iscreated with human activity and processes in mind. I am very excited by your discussion but this requires a deeper and more reflective discussion than I am able to do at this time( I just submitted my doctoral dissertation March 3rd!!) I will reflect on these ideas further and continue to read with interest your posts. This is precisely some of what I discuss in my own doctoral thesis, where I look at the theories and knowledges that underpin what we teach in interior design, and what is an interior design process of creating an interior space. Tiiu Poldma ----- Original Message ----- From: klaus krippendorff To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 9:10 AM Subject: Re: Re Abstraction Kari Hans wrote: >Let's assume you design something else, like a theater interior. You >become inspired by the breeze on a cold moonlit night. The theater >should in your opinion have that kind of atmosphere, and this becomes >your guiding (generative?) idea. An abstraction? Thanks to Klaus Krippendorf for his wise words. I'd like to raise a more direct question If there is some abstraction going on in the examples that Kari-Hans describes, I feel that we should be careful when ascribing roles to the players in a scenario. For example, is the designer engaged in creating a physical artefact (the theatre set) or is their aim to work on the perceptions of the audience, in which case the aim/outcome of the design is the experience (of a "breeze on a cold moonlit night"). So which is an abstraction of which? personally, i think both options are misguided aims. you can't design people's perception. all you can do is design a theatre set that provides a space for certain social activities to emerge. what designers have to watch for, i think, is to prevent or reduce the chance of something emerging that is undesirable or unethical. Also the idea of a model or sketch being an abstraction is difficult for me. As a designer I experience those things as the most complete version of the final design currently available and I recognise Klaus' description of the way people use them. Childhood is not an abstraction of adulthood but a necessary part of a complete life. Similarly it is difficult to disentangle a "product" from the system or process which produces it. Kari-Hans is right in a sense that drawings and instructions are an abstraction of the product, but when I see cars in the street I see them as an abstraction of a whole system of production, consumption and exploitation (ok, maybe I'm strange) and the drawings and manufacturing instructions are not just means to making a product, they are also tools designed to help workers and their business to make a living. i agree with the last statement. so, the drawings are not simple representations they have multiple uses, play a role in several people's lives, may achieve different meanings in conversations When I (used to) produce technical drawings for products at least 50% of my thoughts were about the people who would use them (often I knew them personally) and the technical processes that they would use. At that point the product was often a done deal and not very interesting any more while the production problems were crucial. good reflection klaus