 |
 |
Hi Ian I don't know you and I don't know your work, so I won't be surprised to find out in the end we actually agree with one another more than it appears...but on the surface, I have a feeling that your world might be different from my world. It is not necessary to drill even deeper in Farson's article because first I don't know him and secondly he does appear to have some understanding and appreciation of design and is promoting the value of design. But if I am to place Farson's article next to the pile of literature review that I have done in the past five years in search of the meanings of design, I fear that Farson has missed the point...and allow me to say that you might have too. ok...mine is an idealist world, i have to admit...it is a world without leaders... and that world will be a real change... for a change. best regards, rosan Ian Rooney wrote: > Hi Rosan > > Yours and Jans points very much appreciated... > > Its nice to give a diverse perspective, hence Farson. > > Farson... yes a little *overbearing* ...music to designers ears or not? > > I am not in total agreement, although I have a strong sense many designers don't understand the > true value of there skills beyond the studio. > > Do designers imagine themselves as leaders? and are we encouraging them enough? > > >There is nothing wrong to have a group composed of 'Top Leaders', but I find it a little bit out of > my alley when it is 'ENTIRELY' composed of 'Top Leaders'. This selection or attitude seems to be out > of sync with my understanding of current design thinking. if design thinking is going to affect > 'powerful leaders', then i expect to see not only designers in the board room, but also people who > are influenced by the board room decisions. > > I am not so against getting the top people, why wouldn't you if it was an option? *people on the > board who are influenced by the board room decisions* I would also like see more of this. > > Kind regards > > Ian Jarvela-Rooney