 |
 |
Dear Ken, I was about to complement you and then I reread what you had posted. I would have complemented you if you had written, 'The definition of design that makes the most theoretical sense and that is the largest and most broad definition, with subsidiary definitions and the use of adjectives working to delimit narrower perspectives.' Best wishes, Terence --- Dr Terence Love PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, PMACM, MISI Love Services Pty Ltd PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks Western Australia 6030 Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848 [log in to unmask] www.loveservices.com.au -- -----Original Message----- From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken Friedman Sent: Thursday, 28 January 2016 6:59 PM To: PhD-Design <[log in to unmask]> Subject: [SPAM] Re: Simon's glory Dear All, Permit some quick notes. To frame them all, I want to note that I have been restricting myself to the English meaning of an English word. (1) To Lily: You are quite right about Vasari, but Vasari’s “disegno” is an Italian word written in an Italian context. This may flavour our usage, but the 16th-century use of a word in Italian (1568) would not have affected English usage from the 14th century. (2) To Eduardo: Thanks for the added information. I agree with the material you put forward. What I’d say, though, is that this supports Simon’s perspective. My usage of the word design focuses on intention toward preferred future states, both planned and invented or created. This incorporates the concept of invented future states — that is, preferring something that doesn’t exist now, and it can also include artefacts as part of the future state we hope to generate or create. The role of drawing in design is that of physical representation or visualisation as one way to describe the preferred future state. We can also describe or delineate using other tools, including words and numbers. Rich representation incorporates many media. (3) To Terry: One cannot infer the best meaning or definition of the word “design” from the fact that some given number of books uses the word design in the title. If we based scientific theory on numbers, we’d have to rewrite science. Apparently more than 40% of Americans believe that humans and dinosaurs definitely or probably co-existed, while another 16% are not sure. Overall, only 25% of Americans believe that human beings and dinosaurs *definitely* did not co-habit the earth at the same time. The numbers vary state by state. I assume that this means that dinosaurs and people lived together in Kansas or Texas, but not in New England or California. While politicians like Rick Perry and Ted Cruz lead me to believe that dinosaurs still roam the earth, I would not be using this as the basis of scientific theory. If 99% of all design books were published in technical fields, this would nevertheless fail to demonstrate that your definition of “a design” is useful as the foundation of design theory. If one were to take the titles and develop usage exemplars from within those books, what we would learn is how the authors of the different books use the word design. This would give us an inferential basis for possible arguments about usages across different fields. But given the full corpus of book titles in which the word “design” appears, I’d suspect that you are overlooking a significant number of titles in fields that do not involve engineering or technology. And I’ve come to distrust the definitions you apply to the notion of “art-related” related design. You are once again wading into the realm of rhetoric. There may well be some value in a single theory discourse. So far, no one has produced this, not even you. For that matter, you haven’t gotten to the level of discourse. You’ve focused pretty much on a single word. You’ve insisted that engineers and technologists use word a certain way. You argue that this should somehow create an entailment for the rest of us. To me, that sounds suspiciously like the argument that I ought to buy a specific brand of sport shoes because all the other kids buying them. Serious rhetoric requires evidence, analysis, and logic. People who work seriously with rhetoric learn to analyse and understand what words mean. So far, your arguments about the meaning of the word “design” have been rhetorical, but your argumentative foundations have been weak. “All the other kids are doing it” is no basis for theory construction. There is another way to look at it: perhaps the largest and most broad definition that works for all approaches to design would make the most theoretical sense, with subsidiary definitions and the use of adjectives working to delimit narrower perspectives. (4) To Klaus: Thanks for a couple of lucid posts. Normally I’d send a private note to say that I appreciate your thoughts, but this is a post commenting on contributions to the thread. Your comments deserve a statement of appreciation. Language is a creative activity, and people use language to build and inhabit the worlds in which we live. While I do see some value in stating definitions — at least to make it clear what I mean in a specific argument, a specific article, a specific context. Until we all live in the same conceptual and emotional world, we are not likely to get a universal definition. Anyhow, thanks. Ken Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Tongji University in Cooperation with Elsevier | URL: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/she-ji-the-journal-of-design-economics-and-innovation/ Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------