I disagree with Terry here, and tend to see design primarily as
discourse; but perhaps we have different versions of discourse in
mind. I am using Foucault’s notion of discourse (with a few
alterations). This regards design as a largely agreed upon unity of
previously disparate practices or practices from other discourses.
Discourses (and design fits these requirements pretty closely here)
have hierarchies of power (who can speak to whom, and about what);
they have controlled and controlling languages; they constitute their
own objects (or reconstitute objects as belonging to the discourse);
and they have other sets of rules for how things are to be
constituted and used. As a discourse, design also constitutes its own
history—this is the ‘fishing net’ model of history where, once we’ve
decided that something is ‘important’ we cast back to see where it
began, what the important events were, and who the important people
were, in its ‘history’ (Corbet off to stage left, Mies move centre
stage).
The reason discourse is a useful model is, as Klaus says, it
highlights the cultural and social, but it does two other important
things—it emphasises how power is shifted in and around this unity;
and it also avoids essentialising design, where we continually search
for the ‘real’ meaning, or origin, of design, as if it lies out there
waiting to be discovered. We also avoid models like natural
‘evolution’, where graphic design, as an example, evolved naturally
from commercial art. Evolution de-emphasises power plays, and the
discontinuities that are needed in the constitution of a discourse
(the things that are left out). De-essentialising design also removes
(well, a bit) the heroic myths we tend to see around things we are
deeply involved in—and so works against those popular notions of
'design as the ever-helpful-communication tool and never the
manipulative-persuasion-to-spend-money tool'.
Design as discourse is constantly shifting and each new article,
product, practitioner, or statement (including this one) invests in a
particular way of knowing design. To see design as discourse in this
sense sees design as always political. This, in itself, I think makes
it a very useful model.
kindest regards,
alan.
Dr. Alan Young
Senior Lecturer
AUT University
Wellesley Campus
6th Floor, WE Building
St. Pauls Street
Private Bag 92006
Auckland 1020, NZ
T. +64 9 921 9999 ext.8181
F. +64 9 921 9916
e. [log in to unmask]
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
related
research in Design [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Terence Love
[[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, 8 July 2008 7:58 a.m.
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: design as discourse
Dear Jurgen,
There are many situations and contexts in design theory and design
research
in which the idea of design as a discourse are irrelevant, a fallacious
diversion and not helpful.
Why do you want to define design as discourse?
Best regards,
Terry
Dr. Alan Young
Senior Lecturer
AUT University
Wellesley Campus
6th Floor, WE Building
St. Pauls Street
Private Bag 92006
Auckland 1020, NZ
T. +64 9 921 9999 ext.8181
F. +64 9 921 9916
e. [log in to unmask]
|