Yes, I like this metaphor.
My distinction was between the way one validates methods of frying eggs
(speed, safety, flavour-retention, etc), and the other (aesthetic/ethical)
questions such as whether we should eat eggs, whether we want them fried,
etc. I take the design process to encompass all of these questions. Most of
you out there seem to be agreed that they are not easily separable and I
agree with that criticism of my original formulation.
So?...
I still want to say the concept of proven methods belongs to only one part
of the design activity and I simply caution about the assumption, arising I
believe from the research context, that "proof" is a tool with which to
crack all nuts.
Michael
At 12:00 20/09/2002 +0300, you wrote:
>Dear Charlotte, David, Michael and all;
>
>Years ago I have written something like this: I do not know if science
>(PROVEN methods - methodOLOGY) is to contribute to design, but I certainly
>am sure of one thing that design has a lot to contribute to science. What we
>call design usually states itself as not the quality of a process but the
>quality of an outcome : a product, a system, a poem, a song, or a fried egg
>for dinner. Methods in design can not be proven to be right or wrong, good
>and bad unless you want the same egg to be fried with the same taste for the
>same table with everybody and every condition same around it. It don't mean
>that there are methods to fry eggs, but our human capacity to develop
>methods not to fry eggs are lesser I think. And do not forget that there is
>no limit in our cognitive tastes... In case of designing the ways to make
>things are more than the ways not to do it (unless there is no intention).
>Sometimes I start with my students by asking them to design something
>(anything) bad, ugly, and wrong. "Yet there be madness there is still method
>in it" says Polonius, to be killed later, in Hamlet.
>
>If there have been PROVEN methods to design, maybe those who are designers
>(even in the kitchen) would have never done anything, and those who claims
>to be knowing and understanding everything would be the designers, which I
>am glad is not the case. A state of (personal or common) mind is much more a
>necessity for designing. I don't mean that an understanding and and a
>knowledge of proven methods do not contribute to designing, but they are
>always there and useless unless you have a fire in your mind burning for
>products, systems, poetry, music, dinner tables, and more than anything an
>intention for life and people.
>
>a. can ozcan, phd.msc.bid
>
>assistant professor dr
>izmir institute of technology
>dept of industrial design
>email: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Charlotte Magnusson <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 10:42 AM
>Subject: Re: Building the Field? Useable Information
>
>
>Dear David and all,
>Some years ago I read a dissertation by Henrik Gedenryd from the Cognitive
>Science dept at Lund University (you can find it on
>http://www.lucs.lu.se/People/Henrik.Gedenryd/HowDesignersWork/index.html).
>Basically he states that design methods (with his definition of "method")
>does (and can) not work. I have noticed that myself I have since then
>started to talk about a "toolbox" instead of methods - but maybe I am just
>shirking the issue;-).
>
>Another thing which I would be interested to find out more about is the way
>the amount of persons involved influence the design process. My feeling is
>that roughly speaking the process will be more rigid (and maybe more of a
>method) the more persons there are. Anybody who can direct me to anybody who
>has studied this, or has ideas on the subject?
>
>Best wishes!
>/Charlotte
>Charlotte Magnusson, Assistant Professor
>Certec, Division of Rehabilitation Engineering Research
>Department of Design Sciences
>Lund University, Sweden
>tel. +46 46 222 4097
>fax. +46 46 222 4431
*******************************************************
Dr Michael A R Biggs
Reader in Visual Communication
Faculty of Art and Design
University of Hertfordshire
College Lane,
Hatfield, Herts. AL10 9AB
United Kingdom
Telephone UK+ (0)1707 285341
Fax UK+ (0)1707 285350
E-mail [log in to unmask]
Internet http://www.michaelbiggs.org.uk/pub/
The full postgraduate prospectus is available online at
http://www.herts.ac.uk/
For information about art and design research degrees go to
http://www.artdes.herts.ac.uk/res2prac/resdegs/resindex.htm
The journal Working Papers in Art and Design is at
http://www.artdes.herts.ac.uk/papers/wpades/
The Centre for Research in Electronic Art and Communication is at
http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes/practice/creac/
***********************************************************
|