Dick,
It was the end of the day and sorry that I was being a pain in the arse towards
the design research community and stir things up again, but I never realized
Rhetoric had the two meanings, checking out MSN Encarta gives this (see below) -
I have always felt that No. 2 & 3 is the take on rhetoric in general, although
rhetoric at court was seen as a good skill in earlier times, and underlines the
methods used in getting the message across - design again?
1. persuasive speech or writing: speech or writing that communicates its point
persuasively
2. pretentious words: complex or elaborate language that only succeeds in
sounding pretentious
3. empty talk: fine-sounding but insincere or empty language
4. skill with language: the ability to use language effectively, especially to
persuade or influence people
5. study of writing or speaking effectively: the study of methods employed to
write or speak effectively and persuasively
Reading the general posts on the design canon, etc. I am still stuck on the
question that two individuals with the same exposure to literature and design
'training' and the same cultural backgrounds can be miles apart in design skill.
Is this a 'talent for design' that causes this?
A library of books cannot alter this skill factor. I don't believe Starcke,
Newson, etc have read all of this stuff and yet create great work, maybe the
practitioners don't need to know why or how. Taste is also a nightmare, as a
'bearded' design critic is arguably the least equipped to deal with it.
Glenn
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|