Hello Ken and members of the list,
I would like to respond to your posting below with an alternative response
to the relation between designing and making:
Ken wrote:'Craft and manufacture have to do with realizing design. Crafting and
manufacturing do not constitute the design act. The creative process of
design involves rhetoric, planning and articulation. '
Both John Chris-Jones and C. Thomas Mitchell have posited that processes of
soft design are akin to the trial and error process of craft - that is,
where designing, adoption and modification occur over time through an
evolutionary process of making. In software design, computer programmers
can alter a programme through use thus changing the design - these authors
posit this process as a user-responsive design approach, I think grounded
within the intangible products of the web and virtual space. what makes
software design different in these authors opinions is the ephemerality and
making processes of virtual and relatively intangible spaces and products.
In my own research explorations of design practice, I have found that there
is an alternative space to traditional design through which this process
can happen beyond non-representational drawing - ie. through the trial-and
error evolution of the physical artefact - though this raise questions of
time and economics that are embedded in traditional process. i therefore
think it is possible to have an alternative mode of designing embedded
within the experimental making of the artefact though this cannot occur
within the definitions of professional practice that exist. that is not say
it is not design, but it is an alternative mode of practice - also this
happens to some extent in architectural and design practice, through the
builder's resolution of working drawings, though constantly constrained by
the contractual expectations of the profession. However it does show the
schism between pure theory and practice.
Thank you for your posting and I am interested in your comments.
Regards, Cathy.
At 07:38 PM 29/09/00 +0200, you wrote:
>Glenn Johnson responds to Richard Buchanan by writing,
>
>"One of your points is that Rhetoric and Design are related (arguably) as
>'creative' processes. ... It would be interesting to postulate that Design
>Research is more closely related to Rhetoric, than it is to the "field of
>study" Design."
>
>I'll propose another view.
>
>Design is the process of planning and articulating an artifact or process
>that does not now exist and has yet to be built or brought into being. This
>artifact or process must be articulated in terms of a future state better
>than a present state. This includes futute states of things or doings that
>don't exist at all. While the designed artifact or process will be created
>to fill a void rather than improve a current artifact or process, it will
>improve a current situation by filling the void.
>
>Given these circumstances as postulates, and given the rhetorical nature of
>planning and articulation, I will assert that rhetoric has as much to do
>with design as with design research. I will also propose that rhetoric has
>more to do with design than craft or manufacturing do.
>
>Craft and manufacture have to do with realizing design. Crafting and
>manufacturing do not constitute the design act. The creative process of
>design involves rhetoric, planning and articulation. Realizing design in
>the form of artifact or process comes next, and the realization is part of
>that which one designs.
>
>
>Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
>Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
>Department of Knowledge Management
>Norwegian School of Management
>
>+47 22.98.51.07 Direct line
>+47 22.98.51.11 Telefax
>
>Home office:
>
>+46 (46) 53.245 Telephone
>+46 (46) 53.345 Telefax
>
>email: [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|