> Why is Cindy female? Her responses didn't ring true to me. Her
> response to Jonas's use of the word 'girls' seemed odd. I too was a
> tomboy, but I wouldn't have responded in this way to that comment.
> Her youth also didn't ring true. She spoke like a 'a bearded man with
> a blond wig and lipstick' (thanks to mads) rather than a young woman.
<snip/>
> In this sense, Cindy abused your power and standing as she borrowed
> your persona and your knowledge, despite your best efforts to
> disguise this.
<snip/>
> And perhaps this is a good lesson for us educators/actors that
> despite our best attempts, we are ultimately revealed.
I have heard it said that some industrial engineers can identify the
software tool used to model a product.
I know from experience that I can tell from examining source code what
training the developer has undertaken and, in some cases, their
identity.
I have heard it said that Gherry's work is unmistakable.
My questions are these:
Can a designer remove all (or the vast majority) of "themselves"
from their designs?
Should this be a goals of design (and designers)?
If the first answer is "no", then are designed objects therefore
imbued with a morality and an ethic that is independent of their use?
Am I "evll" for seeing Cindy (or any person) as a design artifact?
Just some thoughts from an engineer who has been taught that
engineering designers should be as interchangeable as their designs.
Jason
|