 |
 |
I would like to add some thoughts to Erik's response. I believe that looking at design as a 'common' activity does not mean looking at it as a naive, unsophisticated activity. Using the sports metaphor mentioned previously, it is not a contrast between 'school yard' sports and 'professionals'. It is a discernment of what the 'game' is all about, what are its boundaries, rules, traditions etc. and how does one become better at playing the game? What makes a particular game a 'good' game? How does the game change over time and what is 'playing' all about? I believe that some of the most professional, successful, skilled, talented designers are not known as 'professional' designers at all. Design is more than a skill set. It is a mindset, knowledge set and tool set as well. The capacity to design is a fundamental human ability that is utilized to greater or lesser degrees of competence in all domains of life. Harold On Tuesday, July 15, 2003, at 01:48 PM, Erik Stolterman wrote: > Lubomir (and others) > > I agree with you that we "should study design not because of its > everyday phenomenality, but as a specialized and enhanced activity". > But, this has to be done at a level where design is given its due > respect as a such a specialized activity. Design is special by means > of its very fundamental preconditions and internal characteristics. To > me a foundational understanding of design must be created by a > careful examination of how these fundamental preconditions and > internal characteristics play out in advanced professional > situations, by the very best designers we can find. So, there is a > need to (both) create a broader understanding of design as the most > general approach of world creation (in contrast to other approaches, > such as science, art and religion), and a need to develop general > design knowledge possible to be used by advanced design professionals > in their respective field. (Of course, there are besides this, > distinct skills and knowledges that goes with each field of practice, > related to the intended outcome, material, etc.) > > So, I agree that professionalization is needed, but not as a way to > define what design is or what it is not, but as a way to foster good > designers. > > Erik > > tisdagen den 15 juli 2003 kl 14.16 skrev Lubomir S. Popov: > >> >> Eric, >> >> I appreciate your remarks and agree with them in a particular aspect. >> However, my concern is that with such approach we are going towards >> the study of everyday behavior. In addition, we dilute the term to >> such a degree that it looses its analytical power. >> >> At our level, we should study design not because of its everyday >> phenomenality, but as a specialized and enhanced activity. We should >> be interested in the advanced methods rather than the universal logic >> structures of projective (design) thinking. I haven't heard about >> someone professionally involved in soccer to go and learn soccer the >> way it is played at the local school ground. I know that experts go >> to Manchester or Madrid to study how the pros from United and Real do >> it. (Sorry I forgot the names of the Brazilian an Argentinean clubs.) >> We are interested in design benchmarking. We need the best examples. >> And it is natural that we can find them in the professionalized >> situations. That's why we talk about professionalization. >> >> There might be some differences in our professions and professional >> experiences. You recently implied that Industrial Design is still in >> process of academic definition and that in that area education is not >> a predictor of performance. I come from Architectural background and >> strongly believe that education is important. I mean not doctoral or >> research degree, but high level design training in a focused teaching >> environment. It is the most accessible way of disseminating the >> expertise of good designers. Studying at the workplace is possible, >> but it depends on serendipity -- availability of good designers, >> their desire to share expertise, etc. Lets not forget that in >> practice only a small number of designers are good. You a probably >> among them. But you can actually guess the number of incompetent >> designers by looking at all mass culture trinkets on the market. >> >> So, there is some sense in professionalization. And, it is not >> invented by Ph.D.'s -- it had emerged spontaneously as a result of >> social influences Mr. Capitalism. I see that at this time there is a >> big gap in the degree of professionalization in different domains. At >> the one end of the spectrum are engineers and architects, at the >> other end I see interior designers who still think like homemakers. >> There are might be more like them. >> >> Regards, >> >> Lubomir >> >> At 12:18 PM 7/15/2003 +0200, Erik Stolterman wrote: >>> This remark is not necessarily in opposition to anything already >>> written, since I believe some of it is already said ;-) >>> >>> To me, it is not interesting to understand design as a "profession" >>> or "field", but as one of several basic ways humans can approach >>> their world. And as such, design is more or less counsiously part of >>> all professions and fields. To design means to approach the world in >>> a specific way, different from other basic approaches, such as >>> science, art, religion etc. But we all know that we usually need >>> more than one of these words to describe the actual activity within >>> a specific profession or field, since the complexity demands for >>> knowledge from more than one approach. For instance, (hopefully) any >>> scientist know that there are design aspects, and also artistic, in >>> her work, not to mention how other approaches, such as >>> philosophical, ideological, economical play a role in the field of >>> science. The same is probably true for any human enterprise. >>> >>> This leads me to belive that there is no point in trying to define >>> design by single out professions or fields. Instead different fields >>> and professions (or organizations, teams, or individuals) might be >>> described as to what degree they usually work in a designerly way, >>> or are design competent. Understood in this way, design is given its >>> rightful place and importance in relation to the other approaches >>> (science, religion, art, etc). This also means that we can find >>> excellent examples of good design work almost anywhere, but also of >>> terrible designs. >>> >>> Summer greetings >>> Erik >>> >>> >>> -------------------- >>> Erik Stolterman >>> Informatics >>> Umeå University >>> S-901 87 Umeå >>> Sweden >>> >>> Phone: +46 (0)90-7865531 >>> Email: [log in to unmask] >>> Homepage: http://www.informatik.umu.se/~erik >>> Advanced Design Institute: http://www.advanceddesign.org >> >> >> >> > > Harold G. Nelson, Ph.D., M. Arch. President; Advanced Design Institute www.advanceddesign.org Past-President; International Society for Systems Science www.isss.org Affiliated faculty, Engineering, U. Wash.