 |
 |
Hi Tiiu, I am not sure what you mean in the below. Are you just saying that you can't seperate out the subjectivity and objectivity, e.g. arguing along similar lines as Pierre Bourdieu in his genetic structuralism? Or are you saying that design need not be focused around an objective, it could be 'bottom up' as much as it is 'top down' towards a particular goal? I am reading between the lines and thinking that what you feel is not captured is the 'creative act' which incorporates both subjective and objective elements, but I'm not quite sure . . . Could you elanorate your point of view? Regards Lauchlan Mackinnon ******************* Design philosophy and design thinking are not the same thing and "lumping them together " only complicates the discussion.The concept you describe, Laughlan, is very specific and does not capture other ways that designers explore the design process and how they design. Design thinking is not necessarily limited to object-oriented goals, nor are the steps necessarily as you describe, in particular when you say "customer". In the design work I do, for example, I do not have a "customer" in the sense that you mean, nor do I do "product development" or production (unless I am designing a product). One of the problems of describing design thinking is how you decide to represent it in the first place. Design thinking is subjective and I consider it more as a "design process" because it captures both objective and subjective acts. The issue with "design process" is that in trying to "show it" explicitly as a series of steps ( or asking for a perscriptive way to "do it") we can never quite grasp how designers think, what they do and and how they do it. We can certainly try and I do believe that visual representations are more "holistic" than words ( Fuller' s concept; Chris' sketches and posts); the problem is that these can then become "models". It is the process of discovery that one cannot capture easily.