Terry wrote: "you seem to be proposing that an activity of designing (verb) ...is identical to... a design (noun)".

If we really think about it, the two (the act of designing and the design itself) should be one, but, being human (and Western), we tend to separate what should not be separated. Isn't this one of the biggest problems facing design students? When do you "think" and when do you "do"? How to separate the two activities of analysis and creativity? 
The run-up to, the act of designing, the design itself: ideally all of this should be a seamless entity that cannot be separated into distinct units, yet in research this is exactly  what is required! Our subjective selves, our own experiences of designing and of design, the 'outside' history of designing and of designed objects, theories of design (and most importantly related theories) that are applicable to the current problem, all of these factors are trying to gel into what we hope would become a harmonious mix. In real life it is not so simple, being mostly composed of contradictions, oppositions, rough patches and conflict. You as designer have to be the negotiator for peace, knowing that your own subjective input becomes one of the factors in this fight - with every factor trying to get the upper hand (this is a form of natural "hegemony"). No one factor should win, so that design itself may emerge, the design entity, the creativeness that is not yet present until some form of cooperation starts to become apparent between the rival factors (which is partly why I advised Rosan not to be afraid of "design hegemony").

If we honestly try to uphold the ideals of Protagoras' "fitness",  leaving our (social) selves out of the design decision - making equation (which would seem quite impossible to some) and rather concentrate on what is best, at this moment, for the problem at hand,  we may find that it becomes possible to loosen the bounds of subjectivity and to some extent escape the tyranny of "scientific objectivity" so hated by especially artists.

As to Terry's second query: a "past of design" consists of a history of designed objects, a history of designing (a how-to which includes theory) and any related theories which in the past have had an influence on the idea of design and designed objects (this last very difficult, often, to discover - one of the best reasons for writing about design). This "past" then begins to include an own past of experience, which in itself is split between experience of social factors and any experience of design itself. For students the missing areas are immediately apparent, but given that design should not be seen as this "magic" something apart, something not really part of everyday life, the missing gaps (in design knowledge/experience) need not be as great or as detrimental as one might think. What we are looking at, in contemplating a "past of design" are different strands of being human coming together, and seen s such one may discern and begin to understand "the underlying mechanisms through which these 'talents' emerge and are actualised."

Regards
Johann


Johann van der Merwe
Faculty of Art and Design, Port Elizabeth Technikon
P/Bag X6011 Port Elizabeth 6000
Phone  +27 41 504 3682  Fax +27 41 504 3529


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%