 |
 |
Dear Chuck, one of the ways that I look at stance is through categories of apprehension - that is, when we stand, in relation to the world, as a designer, or as a communicator etc., we assume (take on the limitations of) a range of things. For example, one can compare the apprehension of "difference" between say a Design stance, a Communication stance and an Information (as in Information Technology) stance. I have done this and produced a set of distinctions. (See Russell, Keith *Design Philosophy and Difference*. Design Journal (Ashgate Publishing) ISSN 1460-6925, Vol 5, Issue 3, 2002. pp. 35-40.) It is perhaps easier here to example what I am talking about in terms of literature. Traditionally we have three historical genres: the Dramatic, the Epic (novel), and the Lyric (poetry). In each of these, we engage differently according to how we understand we are intended to stand in relation to the available materials. Much of the nonsense of post-modern and de-constructionist approaches to the novel has arisen because critics have elected to stand, in relation to a novel, as if they were reading a poem (lyric). That is, the levels of difference that one might bring to a poem have been brought to a novel. This, of course, has been compounded by novelists writing novels in the lyric mode. And, to further aggravate the distinctions, modern films have elements of all three genres mixed up in a trifle cake of possible stances. We can, however, use film to example some of the key issues. In a film, what are we to do with the background? Beyond saying the film is set in Paris, are we to say that the director intended the green VW driving by as some kind of comment on the action? Or, are we to question whether the green VW is there because of a product placement that is just fanservice, or maybe it is product placement that is intended to make a comment on the lives of the characters? In a novel, the green VW is only there because the author put it there, maybe incidentally. In a poem, the green VW is there as a possible symbol, metaphor for all kinds of things - the very sound of VW could have all kinds of links with other sounds etc. We can readily understand these different stances and hence we can say a film or novel is very poetic and a novel or poem is very dramatic, and a drama or poem is very epic. Following on this illustration of our general awareness of stance, we can say an object is very designerly, by which we mean that the stance of the designer has over-loaded the stance of design. And so on. So, when we take the stance of a designer, how do we apprehend differences? In my paper, mentioned above, I take a rather logical and material approach. In IT, the differences need to be no more than binary and repeatable with very low levels of redundancy. In design, differences must be materially stable, repeatable and have a higher level of redundancy than those to be found in IT. In the case of communication, we need all the above plus very high levels of redundancy. We apprehend the logical and material possibilities of difference according to our social organization of stances. Hope these comments are useful and all the best with the project keith >>> Charles Burnette <[log in to unmask]> 04/01/11 4:41 AM >>> Harold said: "Design is a stance I believe, an approach to the human condition just as science, religion or politics are, and not a discipline." Derek replied: I like that notion of design as a stance. I'm going to think about. it I'm delighted that the concept of "design stance" has been introduced to the list: We owe the terms to Daniel Dennett, the American Philosopher. He defined *Design stance* as behavior in which one predicts that an entity is designed as they suppose it to be and will operate according to that design. (1) I have adapted his broader philosophical system based on interpreting things from an "intentional stance" as the motivating orientation focusing all modes of purposeful thought, and design thinking in particular. I believe that the design stance is primarily a way of focusing intentional thought and action to produce meaningful and appropriate expressions, artifacts or behaviors relevant to intentional goals regarding a situation or context of concern. Formulating an appropriate proposal, message, or artifact regarding a focal situation requires a "design stance" regarding the situation. However, the products of other intentional modes must be interpreted, synthesized and expressed and synthesized subject to a Formative intent within a broader framework of intentional considerations. Both Dennett's system of distinctions and those particular to design thinking are discussed in the papers; "Intentionality in Design" and "A Theory of Design Thinking" that can be found at http://independent,academia.edu/charlesburnette. I'd really appreciate your thoughts about how a "design stance" becomes motivated and pursued. It has become a fundamental building block for my theory of design thinking. It is too important an idea to be left without adequate formulation. Thanks, Chuck 1) Dennett, D. 1996. Kinds of Minds, NY: Basic Books