 |
 |
Dear Rosan, Thanks for this explanation. If the contributors -- or anyone else -- wants to discuss why we should read some of the material they propose, it would be helpful. I know from private correspondence that some of them do have an articulate reason for their choices and selections -- and some of the contributors have explicitly described their views in clear articles outlining their philosphical and theoretical positions. Given the fact that these discussions are clear statements that outline premises, this is not the same as unpacking assumptions. Even so, you are right to say that this would bring the discussion to a new level. I'll join you in an initiative here to ask my contributors to share with me -- and with the list -- any of the writings in which they state their theoretical and philosophical positions, premises, or presuppositions. While the special issue of Visible Language was an important contribution, it is not the only bibliography. There are numbers of small but useful bibliographies assembled in different forms, not least in the reference lists of the various articles and collections. It is also fair to note that some of these contributors have written book reviews on many titles in philsophy and design that constitute essays and bibliiographic notes. Cameron Tonkinwise's recent review of Flusser's book is a good example, or Ken Friedman's review of Bucciarelli. Since the special issue of Visible Language also covers theory and research methods, I thik you'll find a wide range of bibliographic resources in places from the back issues of Design Research News to the web site of the BIAD Research Training Initiative I'll be on the road for the rest of the week. I'll gather and post my next compilation when I return with my band of merry men (and women), having done our best to steal from the rich and retain the value-added earnings. In the meantime, I'll hope that some of the compilation contributors will accept the challenge to explain their positions and the reasons for WHY they made the choices they did. Sincerely, Cindy Jackson >From: Rosan Chow <[log in to unmask]> >Reply-To: [log in to unmask] >To: Cindy Jackson <[log in to unmask]> >CC: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: A typical rosan's comment: Re: Philosophy and Design >Compilation, Part I >Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 12:19:28 +0200 > >Dear Cindy > >thanks for taking time to respond. and here are some of the backgrounds >against which >i wrote my last post. hope that will help our communication: > >some time (after La Clausaz) in 2000, there was a thread of discussion >on what >'should be' the important literature for phd design students. no >concrete results >came out of the discussion, but useful discussion nonetheless. > >the field of product/communication design research needed a bibilography >badly. > >then between 2001 and 2002, our friend Sharon Poggenphol and her >colleagues took on >the challenge. they conducted an online survey and compiled a list of >books on >philosophy of design, design theories, design methods etc. it is >published as a >special issue in "Visible Language". > >we now have an anotated bibilography among us. i think it is the best >that i am aware >of. > >but when i look at this bibilography, what strikes me as missing is an >analysis of >how we come to have these choices. what are the fundamental assumptions. >what is this >bibilography telling us about our changing ideas on designing. > >my last post came out from the above observation. and it was never meant >to undermine >the efforts that you have put into making the list.but rather trying to >take >it to the next level. > >i think we are at a stage where we don't ask 'what should we read?', but >rather 'why >should we read these?'. we need to move forward. > >smile, rosan _________________________________________________________________ From must-see cities to the best beaches, plan a getaway with the Spring Travel Guide! http://special.msn.com/local/springtravel.armx