Dear Cathy,

Thanks for your response.

While I generally distinguish art and design practice, the post
addresses research issues supporting practice, rather than addressing
practice itself.

You raise useful issues on the varieties of art practice. Many of the
new forms of art practice from about 1895 on depart from traditional
studio practice. This divergence becomes quite pronounced from the
1950s and 1960s when artists in areas such as intermedia, happenings,
performance art, video, communications art, research art, etc., began
their work. In general, the distinction I raise involves a clear
issue: the artist is free to choose. Many artists choose some form of
social engagement and external orientation. Suzanne Lacy and other
important artist who emerged during the 1970s are good examples of
this kind of choice.

The distinction between art and design is that the artist makes the
choice and follows it. The designer is always obliged to a set of
external criteria. In some cases, designed artifacts are essentially
art works by designers.

The case of the procurement architect remains a case of orientation
toward an external problem. That the procurement architect ignores or
fails to deal with every aspect of the society within which the work
is embedded is a separate issue. The work of the architect "meets the
needs of the person or people whose problem it attempts to solve." It
is the case that architecture can be practiced (and even
commissioned) as a form of art, but it continues to "have a status
independent of the designer and the designer's tastes and personal
desires." It is tough to get at all the issues in fewer than 1,000
words. The note was highly condensed, and a full exposition would run
closer to 6,000 words. Allowing for all the many varieties and
overlapping sets of criteria, the distinction is generally and I
offer it as generally valid. In the case of architecture, and many
other forms of design, the designer's tastes and personal preferences
may be an important aspect of work that is also required to meet
external criteria, f.ex., budget constraints, building codes, or
client tastes and personal preferences.

I didn't suggest that designers or architects are devoid of self. I
simply stated that they are engaged in a professional practice that
involves solving problems for others. These problems, like the
problems that come to lawyers and physicians, have a status anchored
in needs external to the practitioner. The best physicians and
lawyers bring self to their work in the service of external needs
much as designers and architects do, but the problems they solve are
external to the self. (Solving problems for others may also give rise
to internal problems, but that, too, is a separate issue.)

Calling for careful references and citation doesn't address the many
complex issues in method that you raise. All your points are valid,
and they account for many varieties of research.

My post stated that research of any kind must explain itself
sufficiently to allow others to consider it, understand it, respond
to it, and make use of it in some way.

There are many valid research methods of al kinds, depending on the
project, the needs, the resources, and the goals of research. In
nearly all of these, conscious attention to epistemology and ontology
are vital. Personal opinion, personal feelings, and mature reflection
are central tools in nearly all research. Acknowledging the role they
play - whatever it may be - is therefore a mark of methodological
honesty. This, too, is an issue distinct from confusing personal
opinion with other kinds of evidence. The report of personal opinion
and feeling is sufficient evidence for those aspects of the research
restricted to the self. Reference and citation are used to clarify
and make other kinds of evidence available.

To call for clear presentation of evidence and a clear discussion of
method does not suggest that all kinds of method are the same, or
that they should be clear in the same way. It is a call for open and
honest discourse that permits all to participate in the discourse on
equal terms. This is not a call for eliminating the self from design
or from science, but a call to reveal what has been done in however
it has been done by sharing relevant evidence in whatever form it
takes. This does not suggest or imply philosophical or methodological
uniformity. It calls for a pluralism in which all can take part on
equal terms.

Best regards,

Ken


--

Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Knowledge Management
Norwegian School of Management

School

+47 22.98.50.00 Telephone
+47 22.98.51.11 Telefax

Home office

+46 (46) 53.245 Telephone
+46 (46) 53.345 Telefax

email: [log in to unmask]