Hi Terry,
I can only speak about the fields I know and work in which, as it happens, are all the field you mention, and the answer is most definitely yes.
David
--
On 30/5/19, 7:51 pm, "PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in on behalf of Terence Love" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi David,
Thank you for your message. I understand what you wrote and suggest that it is similar to what I was suggesting.
Would you say that aesthetics is ALWAYS a NECESSARY part of all design activity across all the 800 or however many fields of design?
For example when I produce software code architecture (designs for how something might be programmed), or business process optimisation designs it's not that obvious that aesthetics is a necessary part of the design activity at all.
If in typesetting a magazine I'm managing the words to space-available aspects of news stories, its not obvious that this bit of design activity involves any aesthetics.
Thoughts?
Best regards,
Terence
==
Dr Terence Love,
School of Design and Built Environment, Curtin University, Western Australia
CEO, Design Out Crime and CPTED Centre
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks, Western Australia 6030
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
+61 (0)4 3497 5848
ORCID 0000-0002-2436-7566
==
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of David Sless
Sent: Thursday, 30 May 2019 9:40 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: A definition of design must also exclude as well as include
On 29/5/19, 7:37 pm, Terence Love" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:
I'm seriously arguing that aesthetics is NOT part of design. That is It would be better if research definitions of design explicitly excluded aesthetics.
I too must dissent from this provocative and unusual exclusion. But I do so from a pragmatic professional position. In information design we have created a suite of standards against which to measure the effectiveness of our work. These are analogous to engineering design standards but specifically designed for our field.
Over half the standards are to do with avoiding the rubbish bin. Because there is so much information circulating in our society, most people have developed information avoidance strategies. We have to meet these information avoidance strategies head on and ensure that what we produce gets attention.
Some of these standards are concerned with issues that are part of the range of things that come under the heading of aesthetics. If we neglect them, our work ends up in the real or virtual dustbin, making a contribution to landfill and digital waste which in turn lead to environmental pollution, energy wastage, loss of productivity, and increases in social inequity and disadvantage.
I vote for keeping aesthetics in.
BTW, if you want to look at our standards and why we have them go to:
https://communication.org.au/standards-communication-information-design/
https://communication.org.au/standards-getting-attention/
https://communication.org.au/standards-engaging-people/
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
