 |
 |
Dear Kari-Hans Interesting question and position. For me a "Design" is a response to an opportunity or challenge. A product of some agency human or natural. (animal architecture) These could be deeply thoughtful and skillful (think and do) responses or intuitive ones (do and think - if at all) or even accidental or emotional responses, the incidental response (the great India *Jugaad*) or much worked through multiple iterations and trials (professional design) or (plodding and boring 'design' and scientific research as in molecule finding algorithms in the biotech space). "Design" as a result of human agency is visible all around us including the trees and plants in our landscape through selective breeding and cultivation. The intangible cultural norms and social practices too are "Design" manifestations in culture and society. Laws, policies and business models as well as processes and events are "Designs". So, we have objects - parts and wholes, communications - elements and messages, spaces and structures and systems, environments and eco-systems all manifestations of design, cultures and social norms. Arjun Appadurai gives us the concept of social imaginary which could give us a rich description of design – ethnoscapes, mediascapes <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediascape>, technoscapes, financescapes, ideoscapes. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjun_Appadurai> All humans and other actors contribute and it would be an interesting space for serious research. With warm regards M P Ranjan from my Mac at CEPT University 5 April 2013 at 1.00 pm IST ------------------------------------------------------------- *Prof M P Ranjan* *Design Thinker and author of blog - www.Designforindia.com<http://design-for-india.blogspot.com/> * E8 Faculty Housing National Institute of Design Paldi Ahmedabad 380 007 India Tel: (res) 91 79 26610054 email: ranjanmp@g <[log in to unmask]>mail.com <http://www.ranjanmp.in/>blog: <http://www.design-for-india.blogspot.com> (current and with downloads) education blog: <http://www.design-concepts-and-concerns.blogspot.com> (archival) education blog: http://www.visible-information-india.blogspot.com (archival) <http://www.visible-information-india.blogspot.com/> ------------------------------------------------------------ On 5 April 2013 11:37, Kommonen Kari-Hans <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Dear Tim, > > It is clear that we have a different idea of design (as a phenomenon). For > you, design requires the agent and intention, you do not think designs > exist without that relation with the agent, and you prefer that design > researchers focus on the designing by the specialists - this is what I > infer from what you said. This is not all you said and not the essence, but > key points where I think we think differently. > > I think that design is something that various evolutionary processes > create, and that in this grand evolutionary scheme of things, humans are a > very special species among organisms that has the capability to design > consciously and intentionally (other species also create designs, and even > make specific new tools to match a new need, but humans are in a different > league). This has made a cultural evolution possible, which produced our > human culture, which includes a lot of intentional as well as emergent > design (designs that form the structures, processes, etc, of culture). > > Within this extremely large phenomenon of design, professional designers > and their activities form a fairly small special case of the design > phenomenon, albeit a very important and influential one. As the field of > design has at its core a specialist expertise of designing to practice, > reproduce and develop further, it is clear that it mostly focuses on that > specialist idea of design. However, my belief is that that "other" design > has increasing significance in society that also design experts and the > society would probably do well to recognize and consider as something that > belongs to the design phenomenon, as opposed to being outside of it or > something that is "non-design". > > The phenomena in this field of "other" design are not ignored completely, > they are of course tackled in many ways by other disciplines and also > discussed by the field of design, but typically without considering it as a > kind of design. I feel that it is useful to find ways to apply similar > conceptual tools for both the specialist design and these other kinds of > design. Which is something that I feel Papanek, Cross, Nelson and > Stolterman and Krippendorff and some others do, in their own way, maybe > with some other conviction and intentions compared to mine. > > All in all, I feel it is a useful exercise to try to understand what are > the characteristics of that design (the phenomenon), and as part of that > endeavor, I am trying to think about what kinds of designs (the design of > the thing, not the thing itself) are being created in those processes. But > it is interesting that even in the field of specialist design, there are > few definitions of what "a design" is, and apparently, few needs to engage > in that; for most it is enough to engage in defining what "designing" is. > > cheers, KH > > ---- > On Apr 5, 2013, at 2:10 AM, Tim Smithers wrote: > > > Dear Kari-Hans, > > > > Thanks for your reply! I hope you won't mind if I respond > > some. > > > > You're interested in > > > > "... how to describe designs that have emerged without an > > intentional designer ..." > > > > and say that > > > > "... it is useful in many situations to think about > > intentionally designed designs and emergent or > > unintentionally produced designs in the same way, because > > they all have their effects and consequences in the world, > > regardless of where they came from." > > > > I would say designs don't emerge, intentionally or > > unintentionally, and designs can be described in any way > > someone (an agent) finds useful. Anything can be place in a > > design role by an any agent--a thing that can do designing or > > not. So, in my way of thinking about what a design > > is--anything placed by an agent in the design relation--is as > > inclusive as they come. Agents, things like us, can put > > anything they like in this role, whenever they like, for > > whatever reason they like. There's no stopping this, not with > > good reason, at least. > > > > But may be I'm confused about what you're interested in? > > Things (and stuff) don't have "effects and consequences in the > > world" because they are designs. They have effects and > > consequences because they are things or stuff. Things don't > > have to be designs before they can have effects in the world. > > > > So, are you trying to divide the world (or Universe) of things > > and stuff in to Natural things and stuff, and things and stuff > > that arise from agent actions? And you want to use the word > > design to distinguish the two kinds? If so, why is this > > interesting for a better understanding of designing? > > > > Accepting that I may be confuse about your aims here, I'd > > still take exception to the way you talk of evolution. > > > > Evolution does not produce designs. It gives rise to things > > that can be considered as designs--put in the design relation > > by an agent. Remember, no agent, no designs. And evolution > > is no agent! > > > > Evolution doesn't produce cats, human beings, cells, eyes, > > viruses. It's a Natural process (a complicated one) that > > gives rise to things we (agents!) call cats, human beings, > > cells, eyes, viruses, etc. > > > > So, when you ask "... how can/should we define that design?" > > are you asking how are the forms and constructions of these > > things--cats, human beings, etc--to be described? Or are you > > asking how they are designed? Evolution, in my view, does not > > do any designing. And, in my way of thinking, since we can > > place anything we like in a design relation (to us) we also > > get to chose how we describe the thing when considered as a > > design, rather than as a particular thing. > > > > Being a design is not a property or quality of something. > > It's a role that something can be given by an agent. A role > > the something can be given no matter how it came to be (and > > do, of course). > > > > As I say, my sense is that I'm not understanding well what > > you're trying to do and why. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Tim > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------