I have argued, following the cybernetician Gordon Pask, that at the
heart of the act of designing is an action that may be thought of as
a conversation with the self via paper and pencil. This is elaborated
in the recent volume I edited of Kybernetes on Cybernetics and Design
(vol 36, nos 9 and 10, 2007). Copies of this volume have been sent to
several people on the list.
See Glanville, R (2007), Try again. Fail again. Fail better: the
cybernetics in design and the
design in cybernetics, Kybernetes vol 36 not 9 and 10.
Of course, this sort of conversation (clearly some variety of
discourse, although perhaps in a manner that adds to those being used
in the current discussion) is non-verbal.
Ranulph
On 8 Jul 2008, at 06:24, Keith Russell wrote:
> Dear Amanda,
>
> I haven't read Hunter, but what he complains about is real enough.
> Strangely, he seems to feel the need to write in the manner of the
> shonkey theorists that are the subject of his complaint. Stanley Fish
> covers the same ground with eloquence and he is a real theorist who
> doesn't see the need to use the name or the style. He just does his
> stuff.
>
> cheers
>
> keith russell
> oz newcastle
>
>
>
>>>> "Bill, Amanda" <[log in to unmask]> 07/08/08 8:05 PM >>>
> Dear Jurgen and list,
>
> If, by ‘the discourse model’ you mean to include post-structural
> theory
> in general, I’d say that it is limited in its application to design
> because it leads to an attitude that substitutes philosophical
> argument
> for empirical description.
>
> Has anyone read Ian Hunter’s “The History of Theory”?
> According to Hunter, an important Foucauldian insight is his argument
> that the human sciences [design?] emerged not from a single
> theoretical
> discovery but as a series of philosophical reworkings of empirical
> disciplines. This reworking took place as a series of concrete
> intellectual struggles. In Hunter’s view, these were struggles “in
> which
> academics imbued with phenomenological thematics and occupying (to
> varying degrees) the prestigious persona of the theorist sought to
> reconstitute a whole variety of disciplines. They did so by treating
> them as claustral domains, incapable of comprehending their own
> emergence through exclusion of the other, and hence as ripe for
> transformation by those capable of abstaining from the taken-for-
> granted
> and preparing themselves to receive the ruptural event in all its
> purity”
> (Hunter, 2006, p. 103).
>
> Bruno Latour (2004) has a lot to say about this attitude in his
> article
> "Why has critique run out of steam..."
>
> These writings have made me think very hard about my reasons for using
> discourse models in design teaching.
>
> But perhaps this is not a useful answer to your question.
>
> best regards
> Amanda
>
> Hunter, I. (2006). The History of Theory. Critical Inquiry, 33(1).
> Latour, B. (2004). Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of
> Fact to Matters of Concern. Critical Inquiry, 30(2).
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
> related research in Design [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Jurgen Faust [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, 8 July 2008 8:12 p.m.
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: design as discourse
>
> Hi Gavin,
> it seems that all of us having a different background, that makes it
> difficult and frustrating, but it
> also shows the need to sustain the discourse we have actually
> started. I
> am testing some ideas here,
> and therefore it is quite interesting for me to read the answers.
>
> I would be quite pleased Gavin if you would spell it out, as you
> mentioned.
>
> I started this 'mess' with the questions whether there is a limit to
> apply the discourse model to
> design, whether we think design discourse, a discourse of design or a
> discourse for design reflecting
> on Nigel Cross model to differentiate between design science, a
> science
> of design or even a science
> for design.
>
> Jurgen
|