To all
My focus in design theory is somewhat different to a design practice definition, and for that reason I like Daniel's 'Seeking differentiation through insight' = although I have to agree that, as a general design definition, it is too wide.
Some time ago this was discussed, and the mood then was that (practical) design should not be defined, because it can't be!
Design is a groundless field of knowledge (Wolfgang Jonas), and has to be re-designed, re-thought each time we make an attempt at understanding a new situation.
Which brings me back to my focus in design theory - an ontological phenomenological approach that is literally individual:
each designer must decide, must 'differentiate' (must 'make distinctions' - Luhmann), on an individual level, what the phenomena he or she is confronted with means, means to that individual first, means to the people in the system being observed second, and re-means to the observing individual, third.
This turns out to be 'differentiation through insight', or, 'in'sight, 'out'sight, renewed 'in'sight, and then, ah!, so that's what 'design' means, in this particular case. And that, also, means design is (to the individual) a case of thoughful living, because you cannot 'live thoughtfully' without taking the other into account.
Johann
>>> Karen Fu <[log in to unmask]> 06/13/08 6:32 AM >>>
"Design is thoughtful living"--- hopefully a modest definition by Karen Fu,
who has been aiming to abide with this definition since 1996.
Karen Fu
On 6/12/08, Daniel Chambers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I'm sure we have all wrestled with definitions at some point or another. I
> have been pondering if there is a simple, all-encompassing definition of
> 'Design' that works in all contexts. I would like to offer the following
> for your critical analysis, discussion and thoughts:
>
> 'Seeking differentiation through insight'
>
> Regards,
>
> Daniel
�E
|