 |
 |
Fil and Jan, The usefulness of the definition of design that refers to 'making a plan' is that it makes this distinction between design and art. Even in human processes involving very very small time periods some involve making a plan as a reference imagogenic representation that can be remembered and acted upon, and others differently involve reactive response without the planning process. Both can be actualised internally by many different combinations of action of substrates invovling neural, hormonal, musculo-skeletal and internal milieu processes. The main problem seems to be choosing definitions and theory that have the scope and differentiational capacity to encompass all the necessary issues. Best wishes, Terry -----Original Message----- From: Filippo A. Salustri Sent: 9/08/2005 9:19 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Design Jan, This is interesting. Okay, I can agree to set 'instinct' aside. That was probably not a good word to use to begin with. You're saying that a design can exist as a result of something other than designing? Or that designing too can be unplanned/spontaneous? I'm not sure which makes the most sense to me; I'll have to think about that some more. In any event, however, I would suggest that intent is still there, whether or not the action was planned. I believe this thread started with messages about intention being essential in designing. I'd like to return to that and suggest that though the spring board diver may not always plan his dive (I've seen these divers often 'rehearse' their dives on the board - which seems to me a kind of planning, but that's hairsplitting - I get your drift), the diver still has an intention to dive. What do you think? Cheers. Fil Jan Coker wrote: > Fil, > Let me continue the thought. In the case you described - not planned, > spontaneous, even instinctive resulting in good designs, whether we call > the action designing or not the design is an existing fact. I was > however not referring to instinctive which is a minefield. What exactly > is instinct in relation to a human being? I don't think we can assume or > not assume instinct as a participant in the creative work of humans. So > lets factor that out for the moment. not planned and spontaneous may > only be a factor of our perception of reality. Our attachment to linear > time suggests that if something happens very, very quickly; it is > unplanned. Does a spring board diver plan their dive? When? In training > do they plan the dive that they actually do in competition or do they > develop their skill and then when they are in the competition they > "instinctively and spontaneously act". Does a basketball player plan > their 3 point shot? When and how. Are we talking about planning in terms > of decision. We all make decisions all the time in everything we do. We > are after all not inanimate objects. > Jan > > Jan Coker > UniSA > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and > related research in Design on behalf of Filippo Salustri > *Sent:* Wed 3/08/2005 7:15 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: Design > > Jan, > > Let me make sure I understand you. Are you saying there are some > actions that are not planned, spontaneous, even instinctive that result > in good designs, and that those actions should then be called > 'designing' because they result in (good) designs? > > Cheers. > Fil > [...] -- Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng. Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Ryerson University Tel: 416/979-5000 x7749 350 Victoria St. Fax: 416/979-5265 Toronto, ON email: [log in to unmask] M5B 2K3 Canada http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/