 |
 |
Hi Martin, In the late 60s and early 70s, design research and design theory originated primarily in mechanical engineering and operations research. That was the start of the design research society, the design methods movement and 'design philosophy' . Many of those early design theory approaches focused heavily on quantitative approaches. Those scientific approaches been enormously successful and fundamentally changed the way design is done - especially for artistically-based design. Some of us at that time were concerned that the early approach was not complete and didn't easily include qualitative social, environmental aesthetic and ethical issues (I did my PhD on it). That was then. Now in the last 20 years the pendulum has swung the other way. This has been good in many ways, but I suggest it has at the moment swung too far ;-) This is exemplified by the DRS. Since the early 90s there has been a power shift in DRS so that its council has become dominated by academics from Art and Design. Consequently, the DRS direction on design research has moved away from science and much of research in design has now become overbalanced towards art. I suggest that in line with Don's comments there is now often a shortfall in design research in the amount of quantification, science and mathematics supporting design research and design theory and an over-emphasis on some qualitative issues such as aesthetics - whilst at the same time still a significant lack of good design research in other not so mechanical areas such as social dynamics and politics. Warm regards, Terry == Dr Terence Love Director Design Out Crime & CPTED Centre Perth, Western Australia [log in to unmask] www.designoutcrime.org +61 (0)4 3497 5848 == ORCID 0000-0002-2436-7566 -----Original Message----- From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Salisbury, Martin Sent: Monday, 3 July 2017 9:09 PM To: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design <[log in to unmask]> Subject: RE: I'm confused: To my knowledge nobody ever argued against aesthetics Dear Don, Stephen and all, Personally, I am more confused by the number of subject headings under which this debate is conducted. Don, you say 'nobody ever argued against aesthetics' . Klaus Krippendorff wrote: "maybe improving the lives of others is a more important aim of design than the abstract conception of an aesthetics." - which is where the discussion began. Stephen-, as I'm sure you will be aware, a certain predecessor of yours, Professor Bruce Archer, put it nicely in 1979 when writing about Design as a Discipline (Design Studies, Volume 1, No 1). He was explaining his motivations for entering this field (design research) and his concern about excessive preoccupation with procedure ahead of end when using the term 'design methodology'- "I was concerned to find ways of ensuring that the predominantly qualitative considerations such as comfort and convenience, ethics and beauty, should be as carefully taken into account and as doggedly defensible under attack as predominantly quantitative considerations such as strength, cost and durability." (And he was a mechanical engineer) Best wishes, Martin Professor Martin Salisbury Course Leader, MA Children's Book Illustration Director, The Centre for Children's Book Studies Cambridge School of Art 0845 196 2351 [log in to unmask] http://www.cambridgemashow.com http://www.anglia.ac.uk/ruskin/en/home/microsites/ccbs.html ________________________________________ From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Stephen Boyd Davis [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 9:44 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: I'm confused: To my knowledge nobody ever argued against aesthetics Don and all, Just to pick up on one point, you say "if I am designing procedures, traditional aesthetics do not apply." The essence of service design is to recognise that procedures are often undertaken by people (though of course often also by machines), so "traditional aesthetics" - whatever you and Lily decide they are - do apply. The design of the "touch points", physical and digital, through which service users and providers engage with procedures, must be well designed. As you yourself have pointed out in relation to industrial design, the visible surface is often the only means by which users can infer the system they are dealing with. One of the main reasons why chip design may not require traditional aesthetics is surely that there is exceptionally little human interaction with a chip. Stephen ............................................................................ .......... Stephen Boyd Davis | Professor of Design Research Research Leader, School of Design | Royal College of Art Kensington Gore, London SW7 2EU, United Kingdom www.rca.ac.uk ............................................................................ .......... > -- Please click here to view our e-mail disclaimer http://www.anglia.ac.uk/email-disclaimer ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------