Dear Kari-Hans
i don't see any problem either. the focus of my question/comment was that
if the knowledge produced by 'designerly enquiry' is not generalizable,
then how might it be the center (as suggested by Geoff) in stead of at
the bottom of knowledge production.
i have some ideas for my own question. but i want to ignite some early
new year fireworks in others. that is all.
rosan
Kari-Hans Kommonen wrote:
>
> Rosan,
>
> Whether that criticism is correct must depend on specifics.
>
> I do not see any intrinsic problem in this kind of work - it may or may
> not be general or generalizeable. For example, scientific theories
> typically are or contain "models, plans, specifications evaluation of
> options and strategies for implementation".
>
> Not to mention that science is also designed (Latour: Science in
> Action).
>
> I think the key is that designers do not always want to design
> knowledge, they often are satisfied with the making of artifacts of
> various sorts. Design itself lends means to both.
>
> kh
>
> ...
> On 21.12.2004, at 19:33, Rosan Chow wrote:
> > produces knowledge in
> > the form of models, plans, specifications, evaluation of options and
> > strategies for implementation that add up a legitimated vision of
> > future
> > material conditions".
> >
> > the most interesting for me in the above is the last 26 words. one of
> > the criticisms that i have heard of on this last 26 words is that this
> > type of knowledge is not general or generalizeable. if the criticism is
> > correct, then how might 'designerly enquiry' be in the centre rather
> > than at the bottom of knowledge production?
|