 |
 |
keith, i have no problems seeing the difference between for and about in the example of film (and other media of representation), but the others seem farfetched. but when you have your trick mail box that cannot receive mail, then your conception is simply not afforded until you realize that it is unable to receive mail as expected, given the shape, lettering, and color. this is a heideggerian breakdown. 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 Keith Russell Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 8:22 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Is FOR is ABOUT Dear Klaus The shift from is FOR to is ABOUT. It often happens for First Year uni students - they take films, for example, to be FOR entertainment and then they find they are ABOUT something. Some of them never forgive lecturers for showing them this magic. This is a shift in consciousness between pre-reflective and reflective awareness. Another example - when I drive in another State of Australia, say Victoria, they use different rules to construct off-roads from freeways - there is far more lead-in in NSW. So, when driving in Victoria I can experience a sudden awareness of the shift - the lead-in is FOR my exiting, but the lead-in is also ABOUT my being able to recognise that what is happening in the road changes amounts to an is FOR. In everday design terms, it is much like Norman's account of affordance - when things go wrong in everyday design, then we become aware that things that are meant to be simply FOR are often confused, in their presentation, and hence, ABOUT arises. For example, an EXIT sign is not meant to amount to a semiotic moment of wonder - or a door handle is not meant to make me aware that most doors could be hung to open IN or OUT and some doors do both. But trick doors can be designed to bring about this shift in consciousness. My PhD, for example, refers to an event on Hidden Camera where they set up a post box in the street. The box looked quite normal, just like a real one. That is, the object was clearly FOR posting letters. But, what they did, was fail to put any opening on the box - there was nowhere you could post a letter. Then, they filmed people trying to find the letter opening and the subsequent moment of realisation that the box was a trick box and they had, in fact, been tricked. Their pleasure was in having harmlessly shifted from is FOR to is ABOUT. In the USA, UP is FOR turning the lights on. In the UK and Australia, DOWN is FOR turning the lights on. Pilots died in WWII because of this game. Hope this helps keith >>> Klaus Krippendorff <[log in to unmask]> 21/02/2006 11:27 am >>> aboutness concerns a conception of meaning as reepresentation forness concerns a conception of meaning as use. i like to have an example of when you are shifting between "is for" and "is about." 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 Keith Russell Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 5:32 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: FW: intentions Dear MSC yep - I agree - all the fun is in the shifting between the "is for" and "is about". keith >>> MSC Nelson <[log in to unmask]> 02/21/06 9:24 AM >>> Keith: If your goal is to open the door, I would agree that it is pragmatic to approach the door handle with affordance. However, if your goal is to design a door handle, it would be pragmatic to think about the door handle's meaning as well as for what purpose the handle is to be used. Pragmatism has different characteristics in different design subcultures. For instance, pragmatic Shaker design intentions incorporate affordance as an expression of meaning. MSC M.S.C. Nelson Assistant Professor Environment, Textiles and Design University of Wisconsin-Madison Room 235 1300 Linden Drive Madison, WI 53706 608-261-1003 -----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 Keith Russell Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 4:06 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: intentions Dear Chris Yes, novels and dictionaries are different in terms of how we approach them. I agree that we make such distinctions all the time. Indeed, we like to do so as quickly as possible. The way I see it goes like this: some things are for something (affordance = is for) some things are about something (intention/meaning = is about) We can approach all things in both ways but we tend to determine which approach should be taken as part of our pragamatic economy. If I am wondering about the door handle's meaning instead of opening the door then I am in a real puzzle or quandry. all the best keith