Dear Colleagues
I continue to reel in irritation at the endless spiral of abstraction.
Perhaps I have some kind of allergy! (At least I am comforted by the fact
that a few others on this list suffer from the same irritation. Thank you
for your kind supporting words. Perhaps we should set up an abstraction
allergy support group. We are obviously victims of a serious chronic
condition.)
On this occasion I am dismayed by the endless strings of generalisations
WITHOUT A SINGLE COCRETE EXAMPLE OR CASE. Most of the time, I just ignore
it. But every now and then, I cannot. Some recent comments by John Broadbent
just crossed the line once too often.
John, I'm not singling you out for any personal reason, there is clearly a
community of scholars on this list who seem to thrive on this type of stuff
and you just happen to be the one that finally prompted me to say something.
I quote from your recent comments?
> most design professions have only known an intellectual world
> dominated by reductionist science.
Can you please list them and give concrete examples? Could you also tell us
which are the 'minority' non-reductionists, also with examples. You see, I
can point specifically at both tendencies in the areas of design I work in.
For example, research conducted by Miles Tinker on legibility of print in
the 1960s was highly reductionist. But many practicing designers and
researchers of the time took a much more holistic view of legibility and
roundly criticised Tinker's work for being reductionist. Today, the
mainstream of information designers would probably claim to be working
'holistically'. As a member of that community I don't feel I am part of an
'intellectual world dominated by reductionist science'. I cannot speak about
architecture, industrial design etc, but during my research in the 1960s and
70s into the history of design and design methods I came across many
examples--intellectual and practical-- that were not reductionist. A quote I
often use, because it was one of my early sources of inspiration came from
Moholy Nagy writing in the late 1930s:
--------
Design has many connotations. It is the organisation of materials and
processes in the most productive, economic way, in a harmonious balance
of all elements necessary for a certain function. It is not a matter of
facade, of mere external appearance; rather it is the essence of
products and institutions, penetrating and comprehensive. Designing is a
complex and intricate task. It is the integration of technological,
social and economic requirements, biological necessities, and the
psychophysical effects of materials, shape, colour, volume, and space:
thinking in relationships (Moholy-Nagy 1938).
--------
Is this a view that only knows 'an intellectual world dominated by
reductionist science'? I think not. Yet this is a view from one of founders
of contemporary design. One could mention others like Christopher Alexander,
Papanek etc. It would be helpful to those of us who have a limited tolerance
for abstraction, if those of you who love the stuff gave us concrete
examples so that we can understand what you are talking about. I would ask
the same of any PhD student I was supervising.
And again:
> Yet many in the design community seem strangely unaware of
> the 'sciences of complexity', or unwilling to engage with them in any
> real sense.
Who are these 'many' 'strangely unaware' people in our community?
I could go on, but life is short.
David
--
Professor David Sless
BA MSc FRSA
Co-Chair Information Design Association
Senior Research Fellow Coventry University
Director
Communication Research Institute of Australia
** helping people communicate with people **
PO Box 398 Hawker
ACT 2614 Australia
Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
phone: +61 (0)2 6259 8671
fax: +61 (0)2 6259 8672
web: http://www.communication.org.au
|