Gunnar,
Is it helpful in seeking a simple definition of design to consider
design as the 'de' construction of the 'sign'?
This may build upon everyone's ability to change the sign,
to "shift... the relationship between the signifier and the
signified".
(Ferdinand de Saussure (1966) Course in General Linguistics, trans
W. Baskin. New York: McGraw-Hill. page 74).
As an example of design, Jacques Lacan inverts and introduces a
Heraclitean 'flux' to the relationship.
(Jacques Lacan. Le Seminaire. livre III. Les Psychoses 1955-1956
Editions du Seuil. Paris VI. pp 296-297).
It may depend upon the meaning of a 'simple' definition!
Bruce
Student
University of Edinburgh
Scotland
Quoting "Swanson, Gunnar" <[log in to unmask]>:
> I find it particularly troublesome when any group tries to define
> its field as an honorific. Is design always innovative? If we
> [design] something that is not innovative, have we done something
> that is not design? How about thoughtful, constructive,
> strategic. . .
>
> It would be interesting to try it from the other side: What is it
> that people think of as design that is NOT design?
>
> Gunnar
> ----------
> Gunnar Swanson Design Office
> 1901 East 6th Street
> Greenville, North Carolina 27858
>
> [log in to unmask]
> +1 252 258 7006
>
> at East Carolina University:
> +1 252 328 2839
> [log in to unmask]
>
|