First, a happy new year to all of you!
Regarding the social aspects of design objects:
Each profession has its own logic of development. This logic often stems
from the intrinsic motivation of the professional community. Changes in
the profession are initiated both from inside the professional community
and from outside, from the society at large.
At this point of time, it is more than obvious that the physical design
community is preoccupied with aesthetic pursuits. This is their own
choice. We should not expect from them that they themselves will go
against their own interests and make a change in favor of society at
large. It will be design voluntarism to expect that designers would like
to change their beautiful dream.
It is the society that has to promulgate this change through its various
mechanisms and it is up to society to do this. If society doesn't press
enough at this time, that is indicative. In a market environment, if the
client doesn't demand, the supply agent would not go forward. The supply
agents respond to market demands. (Of of course, we are aware that they
also shape the demand within the limits that the demand side allows
them.)
The whole idea that physical designers should initiate the change in
their thinking regarding more socially responsive design is not feasible.
The key to a change is very simple, yet evidently not ready -- it is the
client demand. The client demand will change the market, the education,
and the design community.
Using this premise as a stepping stone, we can come to the conclusion
that all this enlightening and educative work should have the society at
large as a prime target, rather than the design community. Once
society changes its demand priorities, the designers would need to
respond.
If there are interest groups who want socially responsive design, they
should target society and develop programs for increasing social
awareness regarding artifact quality priorities. Everything else will be
a beautiful musing of a handful (or 1200 or more) of intellectuals which
unfortunately will produce little or no success. There are a lot of
examples of this kind in the history of the humankind. Professions and
social groups rarely change from within. Most often, changes take place
because of external pressure.
Regards,
Lubomir Popov
At 06:52 PM 1/2/2004 -0800, Alan Murdock wrote:
Happy new year! I'm excited
for 2004 - I hope it will be
intellectually, critically and creatively fruitful for all of us.
I'm
ready to jump into the latest hot debate...
On Friday, January 2, 2004, at 05:07 PM, Eduardo Corte-Real
wrote:
This is equivalent to say that
the
universe of Designology are the features present in objects that can
be
related to the process of Design.
Although if the focus is on the physical features that result from
designing, could this leave out the process, and it is the process
that
is the social, cultural and political function of designing. As
is
stated here the process is an external or secondary to the
features.
So does this mean we need two forms of Designology, one based in
the
physical sciences and one in the social sciences? Could this
inadvertently perpetuate the split we are trying to mend?
In the Fall 2003/Winter 2004 issue of Harvard Design Magazine there
is
an article criticizing the use of the nine square grid assignment
given
at many architecture schools during the mid 20th century. In essence
it
taught students to think about design as separate from the program,
materials, and environment. Writer Timothy Love comes to the
conclusion that formal studies must be integrated with larger
issues.
"What is missing from the classic kit-of-parts exercise... is a
overlay
of content to instigate the architectural process." Love, T.
(2003/2004). Kit-of-Parts conceptualism: Abstracting Architecture
in
the American Academy. <i>Harvard Design Magazine, 19,</i>
40-47.
To focus a concept such as Designology on the features in the
objects
seems to support a purified formal study that neglects examination
of
use and interaction both between designers and the product as well
as
the end user and the product.
Best,
Alan
