 |
 |
Alison Clarke, Director of the Papanek Foundation, is currently com- pleting a comprehensive history of Papanek: http://papanek.org/symposium/ I would strongly recommend reading the insightfully critical history of what could be called the both/and (if Papanek is read as either/or) by Pedar Anker (covering the more techno-utopian approach from Buckminster Fuller [usefully recontextualized in ways the Fuller Institute was, by all reports, not happy with] to Stewart Brand]): http://pederanker.com/ For a strong version of the either/or, see the work of Tony Fry, whose EcoDesign Foundation was founded sound after the UK-based EcoDesign Society whose newsletter often carried Papanek articles: http://www.amazon.com/Tony-Fry/e/B001JP7O4K Cameron ___________________________________ Assoc.Prof. Cameron Tonkinwise Director of Design Studies School of Design, Carnegie Mellon University MMCH 202A, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890 ph (+1) 412 268 6937 email: [log in to unmask] On Mar 26, 2013, at 7:02 AM, Friederike S. Bornträger wrote: > Dear all, > > some of you recently recommended Papanek's "Design for the real world". I read it (1st edition) with great interest - thanks for the hint! Reading it brought up some questions that I'd like to ask the list. I will be very grateful for all your replies. > > 1. Mr Papanek criticizes some designers' practices back in the 70ies (e.g. designing for wants, not for needs; not feeling responsible for some designs' consequences etc.). What do you think: Has it changed since then? And if yes, in what respect? > > 2. Is there a school, a sub discipline or any other group you would call Papanek's "successors"? If so who are they? > > 3. Mr Papanek was asking for more cross disciplinary work groups - > a. do you see major changes in this regard? > b. do your thoughts regarding "3a." count for both the academics' and the practitioners' worlds? > c. what are the design community's positions concerning cross-/ inter-/trans-disciplinarity today? > > 4. While reading I had the feeling that Papanek writes in an "either or"-mindset regarding e.g. the individuals OR the industry. On the other hand it is the designers who successfully (and admirably so) often strive for win-win-solutions. > a. Is this a development over time or does the win-win-idea stem from another school/group/philosophy? (If so: from which one?) > b. The idea that there is more than one possible winner: is this a generally agreed upon aspect of the designers' education and work? > (c. Do you think I misunderstood Papanek on this?… ) > > 5. And one quick thing: I read the first edition - would you recommend going through the second as well? > > Thank you very much for your consideration. As a lecturer and PhD-candidate of Social Psychology who is very interested in design (research) I am very happy about being part of this beneficial list! > > All best, > Friederike > > --- > Friederike S. Borntraeger > Dipl.-Psych. > Research Assistant, Lecturer > Social Psychology > Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> > Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design > Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design > ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design -----------------------------------------------------------------