I agree with this and also prefer the concept of situation, but I also think
we are talking about a special kind of situation, one in which something
needs doing.
Jerry
On 11/17/05 10:04 AM, "Filippo A. Salustri" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Chuck,
>
> I understand what you're saying, and I agree.
>
> 'Artefact' wasn't a good word to use. I meant by the intended result of
> designing, or, perhaps, using your words, the thing that lets the
> intention be resolved.
>
> Does that sound more reasonable?
> Cheers.
> Fil
>
> Charles Burnette wrote:
>> On 11/7/05 1:46 PM, "Filippo A. Salustri" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Put another way, the situation is the operating environment into which
>>> the designers add some artefact, for the sake of causing a change in
>>> that environment.
>>
>>
>> Fil,
>>
>> I don't believe a designer has to add an artifact to an environment in order
>> to transform it (assuming you mean artifact as "object"). The word
>> "situation" is better than "context", or even "circumstances" because
>> context often involves what went before and what follows, while
>> circumstances are attributes of a situation. A situation, in my view, is
>> what is focused on by design, whether to understand it (research) or
>> transform it (design). A "situation" is not an object or an environment it
>> is the focus of an intention, and constrained (given focus and scope) by the
>> intention. It may persist over time until the intention is resolved. At
>> least that is what I think.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Chuck
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Diethelm
Architect - Landscape Architect
Planning & Urban Design Consultant
Prof. Emeritus of Landscape Architecture
and Public Service
2652 Agate St., Eugene, OR 97403
€ e-mail: [log in to unmask]
€ web: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~diethelm
€ 541-686-0585 home/work 541-346-1441 UO
€ 541-206-2947 work/cell
