Dear Colleagues,
Passing this message on for
Francois-Xavier Nsenga.
Please respond to the list or
Answer him directly at:
[log in to unmask]
Best regards,
Ken Friedman
Dear All,
Just a word of caution.
Although there isnıt yet a ³common² understanding of the meaning of
the word ³Design², we nonetheless all agree that we mean a socio &
psycho-creative process, resulting in all kinds of artifacts. Perhaps
our professional ³common ground² lies precisely in the production of
models of material and mental artifacts ! To be explored further.
Production of artifacts is a process studied under the discipline of
technology. (³Design² should perhaps be considered as a technolgy
sub-discipline). And since there are artifacts produced in all
societies all over the world, we can then easily assume that each
society has through its history devised and institutionalized its
peculiar type of precess for producing its kind of artifacts, in
response to the specific socio-cultural and physical environmental
requirements that it has to face.
Therefore, when we envisage to intervene in any socio-cultural and
physical context, we should make sure, first, that we have a
relatively sufficient knowledge of the context enabling us to make
proposals of artifacts which are functional, suitable and useful in
the milieu of destination. That is an indispensable preliminary study
of needs.
Once this first step is completed, the next normal step would be to
study locally produced artifacts, in order to find out whether or not
they fulfill the purpose of their make, and to which extend they
succeed or fail to meet identified needs and embodied expectations.
And it is only after a relatively negative conclusion of this last
step that a foreign or new solution can be envisaged.
In the present state of the Design profession, obviously neither the
first nor the second step above have never been done anywhere to my
present knowledge. That is part of our presently bourgeoning efforts
to develop and expand the span of the (sub)field of our profession,
so we can propose our fully substantiated services wherever they are
needed in the present global world.
Of course in case of life and death emergency, there is no time to
study; only immediate reaction is required with whatever is on hand,
local or foreign. But in circumstances other than urgent, we would be
ill-advised to impose our idiosyncrasies to others. Either they
simple wonıt function, or they wonıt be fully appropriated by
beneficiaries. Reluctantly or otherwise, these latter may transform
them in order to suit them to their own requirements, then the
process becomes one of a borrowing type, as all civilisations have
always done.
In my view, there is no such a thing as universal technique which can
be implemented anywhere, without necessary and carefully studied
adjustments that people and conditions may require, with respect to
their peculiar situation on the globe. So, let us not jump in the
presently offered wagon without a precise prior knowledge to where it
is heading ! The present economico-political or charity driver may
have his own well studied agenda which is not necessarily ours.
³(...)our ability to understand the impact of technology on our
lives, the lives of our neighbors and succeeding generations are
essential to reaching the goals of survival, peaceful coexistence,
and prosperity and safety²
* HJORTH, Linda S. et al.: TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY, A Spectrum of
Issues for the 21st Century. DeVry Institute of Technology.
McGraw-Hill Inc., 1995.
Regards to all and forgive my poor English.
Francois-Xavier Nsenga
P.S. Thanks to Professor John Broadbent, who indirectly made me
discover this so enjoyable and highly instructive List !
François-X. N.I. NSENGA
Teacher and Researcher in Sociology and Industrial Design
|
