Dear Ken, Mikhal, Terry and others,
interesting discussion about traditions / fields and the problems /
opportunities arising from these language games.
Speaking in terms of "traditions" of art&design, design, engineering
design, urbanism etc. is highly unsatisfactory indeed. Maybe it is
the core of our "problem".
Even if we try hard to be "objective" (in talking about different
traditions, as Ken did) we cannot escape speaking from a distinct and
always distinguishable position / tradition. Even more, I would say:
"the tradition speaks us!" This has been so obvious in all the
debates on this list.
I come from an engineering design tradition. This tradition seemed
too narrow to me, therefore I shifted towards systems and social
sciences and finally entered the "art&design" community. The result
is that I have language and communication problems within my old as
well as in the new community.
An example for this kind of unreflexive "totalitarianism": Last
Thursday there was a workshop in Paris entitled "Embracing Complexity
in Design". I gave a short contribution, emphasizing that in design
we need tools that assist us in managing discoursive complexity. The
answer of a colleague, obviously caught in his engineering design
tradition: "this is not complexity what you are talking about".
Maybe Mikhals suggestion is useful to push things ahead. Traditions
imply something like trajectories, which conserve separations and
borders and promote more and more bifurcations. The concept of field
(not so deeply "rooted" in history) instead might help to find
possible intersections and shared language components.
If design is to be established as a discipline which is somehow
orthogonal to the differentiations of modern social systems (I still
see this as a main goal of this list), then this integration should
be attempted. It is no fun to go on with these endless games of
translation (which mostly end up in misunderstandings and being lost
in translation) between the "traditions".
In my view "fields" might be language communities on different
levels, based upon certain vocabularies. So connectivity between
vocabularies might be a goal...
Jonas
__________
At 11.02 Uhr +0000 20/11/2005, Terence Love wrote:
>Dear Mikhal,
>Please could you say more about the idea of 'fields' as you see
>them. To date I've understood the idea of a 'field' mainly in terms
>of the 'content' of knowledge and practices used by people who
>profess to be in particular fields. In this sense, mechanical
>engineering is a field, whereas science is a conceptually different
>category: an approach to acquiring knowledge, which might be the
>content of various different fields.
>I suspect you mean something very different in your concept of a
>'field' that looks useful. I'd like to know more.
>Best wishes,
>Terry
>____________________
>Terence Love, PhD
>Tel/Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629 (home office)
>[log in to unmask]
>____________________
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: dr.popowsky
>Sent: 20/11/2005 3:27 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Distinguishing design from art-and-design
>
>
>Dear Ken Friedman
>
>The actual subject of discussion seems to me very important and even
>crucial for those who ask themselves what design is. It is in that
>context that I want to add that - the formulation or/ and the
>concepts used are not always clear to me.
>
>I quote and stress
>1." They distinguish between THREE traditions, [1] design, [2]
>science, and [3] art. The design tradition as they describe it is
>distinct from the art-and-design tradition practiced in
>art-and-design schools."
>
>Tradition is certainly an important word/concept .As I understand
>it- it implies that design as historical foundations. It also
>implies that design has historical ways of teaching . However-
>thinking in terms of present time- would not the word "field" be
>more fit? Adopting the concept/word " field" would lead to the fact
>that [1] design, [2] science, and [3] art would be considered as
>different fields leading to questions such as- how do these fields
>relate to one another? what common zones do they share? what impact
>do common zones sharing have on the field of design itself?
>
>As I see it- the concept of "field" would lead to define "design"
>not in terms of "art-design" or "art-and-design" but, in terms of
>fields exchange processes. ( wherein one would find more than the
>field of art and the field of science.)
>
>More- the concept of "design" translated into "the field of design"
>, we would have to accept the fact that "the field of design" is
>defined by its ability to transfer, transform, integrate, adapt,
>share or /and reject - systems, laws, items coming from or
>pertaining to other fields.
>
>In any case, the idea of "field of design" would prevent small scale
>definitions. It would also prevent feelings leading to - I quote- :
>" If you conflate all design to art-and-design, then you might as
>well say that most of us are "outside design."."
>
>Mikhal Popowsky
>
|