You say you prefer 'proposal' to 'specification' because a design does
not need as specific as a computer program or an
engineering drawing. As far
as I can see, most non-trivial 'designs' consist of the contractual
communications that are 'specifications' such as engineering drawings,
computer code etc (specifcations for producing products, creating and managing
systems, structuring organisations, defining how influences can be
actualised (policy and advertising designs)etc) - that are
deliberately written in formal languages/ and tightly defined symbolic
structures so as to be as unambigous to the reader as possible.
Seems to me that a core aspect of producing a 'design' is this use of
formal singular unambigous 'langauges' for which the aim is to minimise the
reinterpretation by the user of the design (as distinct formt he user of the
outcome when the design is actualised as a product systems etc).
-----Original Message-----
From: Klaus Krippendorff
Sent:
10/01/2005 3:13 AM
To: [log in to unmask]Subject:
Re: Design and intention
the reference to the intentional fallacy
is a useful one
thanks,
michael.
i said earlier, defining design in
terms of intentions is a slippery slope
to make design meaningless.
but in
my reading of rosan's post, she too argues against intentionality as
a
defining criterion. instead she resurrects terry's suggestion to focus
on
specifications.
i made the same point earlier, focusing on proposals --
verbal, visual,
performative, demonstrative -- and insisting that proposals
(specifications)
reside in the domain of communication.
the meaning of
communication is not determinable by the communicator (the
intentional
fallacy).
a designer can make a proposal but if nobody reads it as a
proposal, it did
not propose (or specify) anything.
people may read
something as a proposal even if it was not intended as such
(or as proposing
what others are reading into what was said), then it has
the effect of a
proposal -- as read or understood.
we like to claim intentionality when
the proposal was read as or taken to be
a good one. we deny intentionality
when the proposal is judged undesirable
(an accident)
focusing on a
proposal or specification (i prefer proposal to specification
because a
design does not need as specific as a computer program or an
engineering
drawing) has the advantage of bypassing mentalism in favor of
something one
can read and read variously in different social contexts. it
also opens up a
space or inquiries into why when which writings and drawings
became proposals
and which did not, were seen as art, for
example
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design -
This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
related research in Design
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of Michael A R Biggs
Sent:
Sunday, January 09, 2005 7:01 AM
To:
[log in to unmask]Subject:
Re: Design and intention
May I make a brief methodological comment on
what Rosan has said about St
Thomas Aquinas?
Like statistics, and
biblical quotations, ideas from the history of
philosophy can be found to
support almost any view. Gold-digging must
therefore be pursued with care in
case one finds only Iron Pyrite. Ideas
from 13th century have had some time
to be criticized and overtaken by
alternative ideas, and the context in which
they arose is now completely
changed. This does not mean they are wrong,
obsolete or without interest.
However, it does mean that we cannot simply
pick them out and reuse them
today as though they were new. If
"intentionality" (note objections by
Brentano) is really the topic of
interest in design, then I suggest "the
intentional fallacy" (Wimsatt, W.K.
and M. Beardsley, "The Intentional
Fallacy" Sewanee Review, 54 (1946)) is a
more topical place to start these
days. It reflects issues that are current
in thought in our time, which
naturally reflects the development of ideas and
criticism of those ideas
over centuries. It may well be that a solution to
Rosan's problem can be
found in an Aristoteleanism, but she might need to
bear in mind the reasons
why Aristoteleanism is not a popular contemporary
approach, and why those
venerable ideas were at some point rejected in favour
of alternatives.
Michael
At 07:04 09/01/2005, Rosan Chow
wrote:
>thanks for the post. it is relevant to what i have thinking. i am
chewing
>St. Thomas 'exemplary cause' which i believe might lend
theoretical support
>to your wish to open up (again) the meanings of
design (that might
>eventually be useful to
practice).
************************************************************
Dr
Michael A R Biggs
Associate Dean Research and Reader in Visual
Communication
School of Art and Design, University of
Hertfordshire
College Lane, Hatfield, AL10 9AB
UK
T 00 44 (0)1707
285341
F 00 44 (0)1707 285350
E
<
[log in to unmask]>
http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes/research/tvad/biggs1.html
For
information about University research in art and design
visit
http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes/research/
************************************************************