 |
 |
Susan and all, Your summary was very useful. Here are a few notes by way of addition. I’ve found Erving Goffman’s notion of Framing to be extremely useful in discussions of this type. In the case of beauty we can use the idea both literally and metaphorically. The distinctions and differences between beauty in science, indeed in particular branches of science, and beauty in design are then much easier to comprehend. The confusions and disagreements seem to arise when we talk across or between different frames. And I think that the confusion grows when we try to transcend all frames and try to define ‘beauty’ in a transcendent philosophical sense. The next step, I think, is a form of madness (at least, intellectually). I also think that framing is an important concept in design. When we as designers take on a design “problem”, we usually do so either implicitly or explicitly within a frame. One of the common experiences we have as designers is finding ourselves wanting to shift the boundary of the “problem”. That, however, is another thread and a different type of discussion. To summarise, I suggest it might be useful to use the notion of framing to give us a much broader and ecumenical sense of beauty: the goddess to whom many of us pray. (Please pardon my obvious sexism) David -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------