 |
 |
Chris (and others), Thanks for all the input. I guess that is what I get for "just wondering." In the book, "Kill Devil Hill," it becomes apparent that while driven by a dream the brothers spent much of their time solving technological or engineering problems... in addition to managing the media :) They were dealing with design in a very principled, methodological way. You bring up an important issue to begin with: is there a difference between a generative idea and a generative principle? I will be the first to admit that I am not exactly sure how the term generative idea is being used. The first I had heard of Utzon's Orange--or TRIZ and Altschuller--was here. (But that is why I came here. To learn new ideas, new people, and new ways of seeing the world.) Additionally, Lubomir mentioned the distinction between mechanical design and engineering and styling/aesthetic design and implications for the use of terminology... but what are the implications? Maybe that is too big of a question for the list. I would be happy with a reference. I guess that leads to the more important question at the moment, and that is, what is the nature of this list? Is it mechanical design, styling/aesthetic design, general design, or some other thing? I don't want to be off topic. Thank you all very much, Jon >===== Original Message From Chris Heape <[log in to unmask]> ===== >Hi Jon, > >I'm not sure how much this will help you, but I couldn't help thinking >that the generative idea in this case was the dream / idea >of "getting up there with the birds". > >The flapping wings was one attempt at solving the task and realising >the dream. > >You mention Utzon's orange. I take this to be a metaphor or >representation, that maybe helped him get hold of an intuitive >possibility or idea for a solution. >Maybe there is a difference in your term "generative principle" and the >term "generative idea". > >I'm not that hot on aviation history, but the Wright brothers got it >right. Was their dream to get up there with the birds >or was it to solve an engineering principle? > >Best regards, > >Chris. > >Jon Nelson wrote: > >"...He made the point that as long as would-be flyers used the >operational >principle of "flapping wings", where the force created by flapping of >the >wings needed to be greater than the force of gravity on the individual, >then >nothing would progress; it works fine for birds but doesn't appear to be >useful for people. It was not until we switched to the operational >principle >of moving a wing through air, with the force of pushing the wing forward >creating a force of lift sufficient to overcome the effect of gravity, >that >progress really began. The operational principle made the difference. > >But, not only is the operational principle a general statement of >bringing >forces together, it is a structured statement. It is quantifiable. In >some >ways it is tangible. As I read through the previous posts on the >subject the >concept of the orange came up as a generative principle. I don't mean >to treat >the issue lightly (because I probably don't understand completely) but >to me >the notion of an orange as a generative principle lacks a quantifiable >structure that I think is important for being able to rigorously apply a >generative principle to a design task or to communicate it to others... >" >------------- > >from: > >Chris Heape >Senior Researcher - Design Didactics / Design Practice >Mads Clausen Institute >University of Southern Denmark >Sønderborg >Denmark > >http://www.mci.sdu.dk > >Work: >tel: +45 6550 1671 >e.mail: chris @mci.sdu.dk > >Home: >tel +45 7630 0380 >e.mail: [log in to unmask]