The point is not about good and bad design: that's a matter of value
judgement, and the valuing has changed radically over the last 50 years
(I was taught that post-rationalisation was a sin, whereas I have come
to believe that post-rationalisation is a necessity—the unforgiveably
bad has become the essential good).
What I was referring to has to do with the old modernist dictum that
form follows function, whereas it's the experience of each of us that
function often follows form. Affordance is one word, functional
specificity is another (well, two!)—it's not really important which we
use. I think my preference is ambiguity. What is important, I believe,
is that we understand the centrality of opportunism in design, the need
to provide more than the necessary (ie, generosity) and that, while
there are usually functions to be accommodated, design is not really
about that. We assume the functions will somehow be accommodated.
Design lies, mainly, in the rest. This is why I mentioned the modernist
dictum, and it relates to what can and cannot be specified, and what
specification might be for.
What specification might be for is, of course, concerned with intention.
________________________________________________________
Ranulph Glanville
CybernEthics Research
52 Lawrence Road, Southsea, Hants, PO5 1NY, UK
tel +44 (0) 23 92 73 77 79
fax +44 (0) 23 92 79 66 17
|