Dear all:
Vis a vis what we do, I would like to perhaps restate my simple (call it simplistic) mantra that design involves considerations of aesthetic.
Design is a synthetic discipline at the junction of natural science, social science and art. We differ from natural scientists because we make new things that have to work. We differ from social scientists because we make new things for people with personalities. We differ from artists because the new things we make have an immediate purpose**.
We are not managers though we plan. Managers/planners are not concerned with appearances but arrangments. Managers can do all the things designers do to handle "wicked problems". They do not consider the wow/yuk of appearances other than that things are not too horrible to be accepted. They certainly do not strive for beauty.
We are not engineers though our work must work and be makeable. Engineers just don´t care about physical appearances: a breeze block wall is equivalent to a Baroque church exterior to them. Engineers are good enough to refer to their work as "engineering design" though. I like that. They are our nearest cousins along with the building designers ("architects").
At a stretch, and out of respect to service designers, some of that design has an aesthetic aspect though this is mostly to do with good manners. Checking in at the airport, for examples, should be a pleasant human exchange. Maybe a designer might try to visually represent that experience using markers and pencils but the product is not tangible. You can´t buy a box of service design.
Out of all that, I think we have a good way to demarcate design from all those non-design things. I am not too bothered though if there are people claiming customers "design their kitchens" (when they choose from a catalogue) any more than I am bothered that people in IT call themselves "architects".
However, from within design we should be alert to what design is and is not. Simon´s famous definition is way too broad. If we add the visual and aesthetic to it we arrive at a reasonably defensible definition.
** Art has no immediate purpose. You don´t need art like you need a cordless power drill. David Pye does howerver explain that art and good design allows us to develop non-mechanistic relationships with things. Just as I like my friends for who they are I like good art and good design for its own sake (even if I can use the power drill to make holes).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
