As design evolves, there will be a spectrum of its manifestations.
There will be a cutting edge, and there will be the other, converse
edge. We shouldn't discount the trailing edge just because it's trailing.
The stuff reported at the link Amanda pointed us to
might not be leading edge, but it will open up some engineering students
to the broader picture. And that can't be a bad thing, can it?
Johann van der Merwe wrote:
> I agree - this is not the design un/discipline that is developing in the
> world today.
> If you attend the EPDE conferences (Erik Bohemia) you will hear
> engineering "designers" speaking a real design language, OUR language,
> which simply means a design language has more to do with the soft issues
> of design, with the immaterial. That is why I have heard engineering
> design researchers and information systems researchers speak of the
> necessity of incorporating issues of social reality and social
> constructivism in their work. Real design is the thinking bits, let's
> get that clear.
> Le Corbusier tried the artistic act of exceptional engineering and it
> failed on a human scale.
> To state that "everyting else" harks back to outdated thinking is to
> place yourself firmly out of the mainstream of design thinking today,
> and to misunderstand the work that a lot of good researchers are doing.
> 'organisation design' - admin = no, this does not simply have to do
> with admin stuff, but with creating human capital, with the very thorny
> issues of dealing with tacit knowledge and the great difficulty of
> designing systems that can retain knowledge that people keep in their
> heads and find so difficult to document. There is no such thing as
> Knowledge Management, which is a joke. Organisational design is close to
> organisational learning, which needs systems designers to unravel (Chris
> Argyris, Donald Schon).
> 'brand design' - corporate identity
> 'viral design' - advertising
> Both of these are being taken seriously by real design researchers, and
> not being used merely as buzz words (although I have no doubt that the
> advertising industry is still filled with enough people who do just
> that), and no, I am not in favour of old-fashioned " branding" that
> simply tells you what to believe.
> I really do not care that some misuse the term viral design, because
> the existence of the term means that there are people who want to know
> more about the effects of design on the users, and to know how it really
> works in "the world out there".
> The term also should remind people of what is happening in interaction
> design, and the way young people are appropriating the designs /
> products. These new users understand what a viral dissemination of
> information can do, and they use it to good effect. Welcome to the new
> I would also link this term to http://rhizomes.net/ the e-journal that
> is based on the work of Deleuze (and Guattari) =
> "Rhizomes oppose the idea that knowledge must grow in a tree structure
> from previously accepted ideas. New thinking need not follow established
> Rhizomes promotes experimental work located outside current
> disciplines, work that has no proper location. As our name suggests,
> works written in the spirit of Deleuzian approaches are welcomed but not
> We are not interested in publishing texts that establish their
> authority merely by affirming what is already believed. Instead, we
> encourage migrations into new conceptual territories resulting from
> unpredictable juxtapositions."
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Email: [log in to unmask]