Dear David
My two bits on the ecological and ethical approaches in design. About
the time that Moholy-Nagy was settling in the USA the field of systems
thinking was taking root in Europe. Ludwig von Bertalanffy defined
General Systems Theory which had a great influence on anthropology,
psychology and linguistics besides its impact on systems dynamics and
information theory and almost all other fields of study.
Ludwig von Bertalanffy <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Bertalanffy>
This is where Margret Mead and Gregory Bateson come into the recent
discussions on this list on the mythologies of anthropology and design
since their work had a great influence on design thinking in the 70's
and 80's when the ecological debate really surfaced.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory>
While the Bauhaus may be seen to be addressing the debates that came out
of the Art & Crafts movement it was the HfG Ulm that set the next level
of discourse to include systems thinking at the heart of the design
thinking and action and much was published by the school and by its
teachers when most other design schools kept their focus on celebrating
the object without engaging in any form of discourse in an sheer absence
of research and theory formation that seems very strange indeed.
From ecological to ideological was in my view a simple step when issues
of responsibility and accountability were raised by many thinkers within
design and here I would particularly include Bucky Fuller and Victor
Papanek, both considered mavericks from within the profession in their
day, but with a considerable degree of respect particularly amongst the
student community.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Papanek>
In recent times the work of John Chris Jones, Bruce Archer and
Christopher Alexander, particularly his most recent work on the Nature
of Order, an amazing four volume offering, that proposes a new position
for design in providing intellectual and spiritual leadership for
humanity in the days ahead, very far reaching debate indeed.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Alexander>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christopher_Jones>
<http://www.softopia.demon.co.uk/>
Wiki is a great source for instant information in a nutshell.
With warm regards
M P Ranjan
from my Mac at home on the NID campus
28 July 2007 at 11.00 pm IST
_______________________________________________________________________
Prof M P Ranjan
Faculty of Design
Head, Centre for Bamboo Initiatives at NID (CFBI-NID)
Chairman, GeoVisualisation Task Group (DST, Govt. of India) (2006-2008)
National Institute of Design
Paldi
Ahmedabad 380 007 India
Tel: (off) 91 79 26623692 ext 1090 (changed in January 2006)
Tel: (res) 91 79 26610054
Fax: 91 79 26605242
email: [log in to unmask]
web site: http://homepage.mac.com/ranjanmp/
web domain: http://www.ranjanmp.in
blog: http://design-for-india.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________________________________
David Sless wrote:
>
> Hi Ken, Norm, M P Ranjan, and all,
>
> I find myself out of step with the last few threads and side
> threads. I find claims about the discovery of 'ecology' outside
> design somewhat odd and unnecessary. I also find the colonial/
> imperialist debate to miss the point by a long way.
>
> On the first of these: design and an ecological point of view.
> Perhaps I take a somewhat different route historically in developing
> my thinking about design. So here are some of my signposts. For me
> the modern conceptions of design have their initial origins in the
> arts and craft movement of the 19th Century. There is (for me) no
> doubting a preoccupation with environmental issues and an 'ecology'
> of objects in this work, as there was among many thoughtful
> Nineteenth Century people, novelists most notably. I am thinking at
> this moment of Anna of the Five Towns by Arnold Bennett. In it there
> is a compelling description of the the effects of industry on the
> environment in the English Potteries, and there is another passage
> about a sideboard that has 'adpated' to the people using it and vice
> versa. These are part of the 'commonplace' views of the time
>
> Though it is harder to discern, I think it is there in the Bauhaus
> too. Even though the Bauhaus was in part a reaction against the arts
> and craft movement, it sought to deal with the same problematic
> issue: how to manage the relationship between people, the objects
> they created and the environment on which those objects draw and into
> which they have to work. Some of Bauhaus thinkers saw the use of mass
> production rather than a return to craft traditions as the way forward.
>
> I don't find the writings of German Bauhaus teachers particularly
> satisfying (to put it mildly), but by the time the the next
> generation, and writers like Moholy-Nagy writing at the 'new' Bauhaus
> come along, there is, to my mind, a much more articulate and fully
> formed designerly way of thinking. I often cite one quote in
> particular that seems to sum up not only where design thinking had
> got to by the late 1930s, but where we are today. Indeed, many of us,
> whether consciously or not, are today driven by the same vision that
> drove Moholy-Nagy.
>
> > 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).
>
> (Moholy-Nagy, L. (1938) The New Vision; Fundamentals of Design,
> Printing, Sculpture, Architecture. (Trans) Dephne M. Hoffman. Norton,
> New York.)
>
> Our terminology today may be different, but there is no doubting the
> similarity between what was said then and what some think is NEW
> today. Further, I don't think we have made much progress conceptually
> from this point in the 1930s. Our tools are more refined and some of
> our methods are probably more effective, but not by much. I suspect
> most of us produce work that falls short of being 'penetrating and
> comprehensive'. Indeed, some of us have moved towards a different
> notion of design, as always less than comprehensive, but that's
> another argument for another day.
>
> My point, then, is that an 'ecological' awareness and the idea of
> objects participating as active agents in an ecology, along with an
> awareness of many other facets of contemporary design, is not new,
> though one could argue that it has taken us all a long time to
> incorporate such facets into our professional practice. But tracing
> 'rediscovered' ideas over the last 30 years, in or out of design,
> rather neglects our own much older history. Moreover, as such ideas
> were already being articulated in public discourse in the 19th
> Century, perhaps a good history of ideas should explore beyond the
> academy for its origins, if indeed a story of origins is appropriate.
>
> The second issue where I find myself out of step is over the
> colonial/ imperial issue. Time permitting, I will turn to that
> sometime tomorrow.
>
> David
> --
> blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog
> web: http://www.communication.org.au
>
> Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
> CEO Communication Research Institute
> helping people communicate with people
>
> Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
> Phone: +61 (0)3 9489 8640
>
> 60 Park Street Fitzroy North Melbourne Australia 3068
|
