 |
 |
Hello Ken and Terence I think Terence is right. The idea that tools (computers) are just tools is to narrowing in understanding media, as already Marshall McLuhan stated. In architecture there has been a long thread of "self-growing" designs (e.g. John Frazer). The point is that in design, especially in architecture there has been a willingness to give over the design process to the machine. In the nineties this resulted in a direction of "generative" design (e.g. Greg Lynn) There was a shift from looking at design as an individual thought process towards looking at it as processes partly beyond and outside the control of the designer. Where is creativity situated? In the individual, the domain, the field? The machine? How can we distinguish between man and her machine? This development of the nineties is continued in parametric design, simulations, use of expert systems and the generative design tools spreading in architectural schools like Bentleys Generative Components and Rhino scripting. Though the generative design trend based on animation and evolutionary algorithms seems to have faded the development of parametric design systems and expert systems is continuing because of its big economic implications but also through the increasing attention to performance oriented design (check reseant issues of AD). Also the scripting techniques and generative parametric systems allow for much more difficult complex and new construction where the overall design is controlled while the singular components are automated and the over all behaviour of the system is simulated. (e.g. the cover of the Great Court in the British museum) I also would like to challenge the idea that designing is a thought process. Yes it is but it is a particular thought process involving visual thinking tacit knowledge and even not thinking but just doing. Drawing, visualizing and generative computing. The anticipation of surprise. So if you regard making as a sort of thought process i might agree. Rudolph Arnheim demonstrated the lack of clear border between thinking and visualizing. So the role of the tool becomes much more prominent than "just a tool". In my doctoral thesis i discussed these issues and took a position were the designer has a particularly active role regarding the increasingly advanced and automated design media. For those interested please go to http://www.birger-sevaldson.no/phd/Developing_digital_design_webversion.pdf Best Birger ________________________________________ Fra: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [[log in to unmask]] på vegne av Terence Love [[log in to unmask]] Sendt: 15. august 2009 10:08 Til: [log in to unmask] Emne: Re: Clarifying an epistemological and ontological confusion Hi Ken, Well spotted. I feel the jury is still out on whether it is best to view design activity as 'people only' or as 'any process that creates a design'. There are arguments both ways and I've been on both sides at different times. The earlier historic positions (Nigel's and others) have also been bivalent on this. My feeling is it's probably safer in theory terms at this moment to go for 'any process that creates a design' in light of the significant recent cutting edge developments in automated cognition, computerized replications of brain function and increased understanding of thinking as a physical process. From where I'm seeing things, the idea of limiting the idea of design activity to 'design is a thought process' is looking a bit simplistic. It's an area of design theory that needs a bit more attention to but probably will be clearer in 5 years or so. I also feel we are moving on from Nigel's seminal work on design as a way of knowing because we know much more about how humans 'know' than was available when Nigel wrote it. Also, the idea of 'Design Thinking' is probably outliving its usefulness. Warm regards, Terry === Ken wrote: There is an epistemological and ontological confusion in Terry's notes... ... people design, machines do not. Design is a thought process.... Nigel Cross's work on designerly ways of knowing examines what it is to design.