Terence,
good question again.
Looking to Paul Rodgers list with almost 200 items I am a little bit
more narrow minded.
We are concentrating on Product/Industrial Design and we canīt save the
world at all.
But we want to improve the relations between products and users, and
this is mainly a question of function & meaning - here we are.
Bernhard
Terence Love wrote:
> Hi Bernhard,
> Again, how will your proposal fit with other areas of design such as
> engineering infrastructure, software systems, standardisation protocols as
> well as the many new 'non-product areas of design such as governement
> policy, behavioural models, business strategies etc etc?
> Terry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
> research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Prof.
> Bernhard E. Buerdek
> Sent: Sunday, 15 June 2008 4:33 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: A simple definition of 'Design' ~ De-constructing the Sign?
>
> Yes, indeed, this seems the right track.
>
> In a parallel movement - but not so much known internationally - we are
> developping since the 1970īs a so called "theory of product language", with
> the same roots like the linguistic turn, semiotics, communication theory
> etc. You can all find this in my recent book: "Design. History, Theory and
> Practice of Product Design", Basel-Boston-Berlin 2005 (third, revised
> edition), available in german, english, portuguese, chinese and italian
> (soon).
>
> Nigel Cross claims since 2000 for "Design as a dicipline", but mostly
> designers are discussing e.g. inter_multi_trans_meta_and so on disciplinary
> approaches. But sitting between all chairs is not a good definition for a
> discipline.
>
> We will host the the 4th European Workshop on Design & Semantics of Form &
> Movement (http://www.desform.de), november 06-07, 2008 where we will
> continue to establish design as a discipline - product semantics & product
> language are really a good basis for this.
>
> B.E.B.___
>
>
> Gavin Melles wrote:
>
>> One of the more perspicacious approaches to the function of language
>> and probably the source of Mike's 'context is eveyerthing' was the
>> later Wittgenstein. On a more practical and applied level with some
>> relevance to the kind of sociocultural and linguistic project that
>> seems to be hinted at here on the list is the work of James Gee on
>> discourse analysis. Gee suggests, in line with most current thinking
>> in a range of linguistic, sociological and anthropological fields that
>> the meanings of words are always assembled on the spot in contexts of
>> interpretation and production which are always dialogic. The
>> sociocultural patterns that lie behind the assembled on the spot
>> meanings for words - e.g when people talk about parenting, definitions
>> of design ... will coalesce into a broad package of meanings
>> differentiated by class, gender etc., into what anthropology calls
>> cultural models and what we can call discourse models (and which
>> partly correspnd to Wittgenstein's l
>>
>> anguage games; Bourdieu's logic of practice). Ultimately these
>> socio-culturally differentiated accounts of parenting, design etc.,
>> will then link into broader frameworks which Foucault called discourses,
>>
> Wittgenstein called forms of life (or something similar). So much for how
> language (and words) actually work. Now one of the other thing that cultural
> and discourse studies (and some parts of sociology ...) have taught us is
> that thigns like the search for meanings - the desire for a 'simple
> definition' etc., is always interested (by that I mean motivated) and
> whatever is discovered or agreed upon should not be read off as some sort of
> final (ah releif) reading of how words correspond to the world (the kind of
> simplistic naive nominalism that Wittgenstein showed early in PI to be just
> that - naive). When language is not 'working' in the kind of insturmental
> way it normally does (hinted at by Terry) but is extracted and set in the
> kind of pedestal that SOME philosophy still l i kes to do people come up
> with all sorts of fanciful arrangements. Langueg use historically
> (diachronically) and currently (synchronically) is always in a state of
> temporary stability and embodies souvenirs of the past an hints at the
> future in its forms and uses. These facts (and some of the other stuff
> above) should not be forgotten when playing language games.
>
>> Gavin Melles
>> -----
>> Swinburne University of Technology
>> CRICOS Provider Code: 00111D
>>
>> NOTICE
>> This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended only for the
>>
> use of the addressee. They may contain information that is privileged or
> protected by copyright. If you are not the intended recipient, any
> dissemination, distribution, printing, copying or use is strictly
> prohibited. The University does not warrant that this e-mail and any
> attachments are secure and there is also a risk that it may be corrupted in
> transmission. It is your responsibility to check any attachments for viruses
> or defects before opening them. If you have received this transmission in
> error, please contact us on +61 3 9214 8000 and delete it immediately from
> your system. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus,
> data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised
> amendment.
>
>> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>>
>>
>>
> Gavin Melles wrote:
>
>> One of the more perspicacious approaches to the function of language
>> and probably the source of Mike's 'context is eveyerthing' was the
>> later Wittgenstein. On a more practical and applied level with some
>> relevance to the kind of sociocultural and linguistic project that
>> seems to be hinted at here on the list is the work of James Gee on
>> discourse analysis. Gee suggests, in line with most current thinking
>> in a range of linguistic, sociological and anthropological fields that
>> the meanings of words are always assembled on the spot in contexts of
>> interpretation and production which are always dialogic. The
>> sociocultural patterns that lie behind the assembled on the spot
>> meanings for words - e.g when people talk about parenting, definitions
>> of design ... will coalesce into a broad package of meanings
>> differentiated by class, gender etc., into what anthropology calls
>> cultural models and what we can call discourse models (and which
>> partly correspnd to Wittgenstein's l
>>
>> anguage games; Bourdieu's logic of practice). Ultimately these
>> socio-culturally differentiated accounts of parenting, design etc.,
>> will then link into broader frameworks which Foucault called discourses,
>>
> Wittgenstein called forms of life (or something similar). So much for how
> language (and words) actually work. Now one of the other thing that cultural
> and discourse studies (and some parts of sociology ...) have taught us is
> that thigns like the search for meanings - the desire for a 'simple
> definition' etc., is always interested (by that I mean motivated) and
> whatever is discovered or agreed upon should not be read off as some sort of
> final (ah releif) reading of how words correspond to the world (the kind of
> simplistic naive nominalism that Wittgenstein showed early in PI to be just
> that - naive). When language is not 'working' in the kind of insturmental
> way it normally does (hinted at by Terry) but is extracted and set in the
> kind of pedestal that SOME philosophy still l i kes to do people come up
> with all sorts of fanciful arrangements. Langueg use historically
> (diachronically) and currently (synchronically) is always in a state of
> temporary stability and embodies souvenirs of the past an hints at the
> future in its forms and uses. These facts (and some of the other stuff
> above) should not be forgotten when playing language games.
>
>> Gavin Melles
>> -----
>> Swinburne University of Technology
>> CRICOS Provider Code: 00111D
>>
>> NOTICE
>> This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended only for the
>>
> use of the addressee. They may contain information that is privileged or
> protected by copyright. If you are not the intended recipient, any
> dissemination, distribution, printing, copying or use is strictly
> prohibited. The University does not warrant that this e-mail and any
> attachments are secure and there is also a risk that it may be corrupted in
> transmission. It is your responsibility to check any attachments for viruses
> or defects before opening them. If you have received this transmission in
> error, please contact us on +61 3 9214 8000 and delete it immediately from
> your system. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus,
> data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised
> amendment.
>
>> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
|