Dear Klaus,
I have always appreciated your original thinking and your admirable achievements. That is why I am often puzzled by the extravagant positions you take. I have no problem with your positions as long as you and all of us understand the limits of their heuristic potential and area of applicability. Actually, they are very interesting and heuristic. But if they are absolutized, then something strange happens.
We can have as many definitions of design as the aspects we envisage. I am not an extreme relativist, but I value different points of view in terms of different aspects and approaches. However, absolutizing one point of view and one approach to the level that it has always be applied and rigorously defended might not always be productive.
I would like to mention that the view of design as a purposeful and intentional action is fundamental for understanding design. In historical materialist philosophy this characteristic of design constitutes the major demarcation line between the instinctive behavior of animals (beaver dam building) and human purposeful action.
I also believe that a general theory of design is possible. My former dissertation advisor and boss, a philosopher and methodologist of science, has achieved pretty good progress in that area. He almost managed to define the conditions under which such a theory is possible and how it is possible. Unfortunately, for a number of reasons, he run out of time and resources to finalize that work and to disseminate it through publications.
A linguistic and communications perspective, stemming from philosophy of language, might be very productive in many situations, but an indiscriminate application to all situations might not always be the best way to conceptualize the realm of design.
I think that the issue is not what is design defined in one term. The issue how to conceptualize design in respect to problem situations, social agendas, and epistemological criteria.
Defining a behavior as a design action just because we justify it and make it accountable might bring some benefits in some situations, but it can also be quite misleading in many situations. We can justify post factum and provide accountability in many instances of instinctive and not intentional behavior. Actually, the rationalization techniques that humans use to explain and justify their actions exemplify this.
The big issue is not about intentionality. It is axiomatic. The big issue is about professionalization. Is the visualization of a layperson about their bedroom decoration a design? Or, only the work of a "professional" designer is design? (What is professional?). If all human everyday exploratory activity is called research, then what is research as a professionalized activity? Do we have seven billion researchers on this planet? And here I want to stop before straying away from the topic.
Yours very friendly,
Lubomir
-----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 Klaus Krippendorff
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:26 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: On design - again?
chuck,
i didn't really want to get into mentalism and avoided the word
intentionality. all i wanted to say that the meaning of the word design is
manifest in its use. there are many discourse in which the word design has
particular meanings, such as when you are asked to pay more for a
merchandise, or when psychologists say they have designed an experiment to
test a scientific hypothesis. we can't legislate the use of the word design
outside of our community of professional designers and i find it futile to
develop a super theory that embraces every use of the word design.
what we professional designers have in common is a way of talking, drawing,
presenting, and coordinating our actions with others or in the service of
others and we teach, develop, utilize and identify ourselves with this
competence. -- and to respond to terry, this way of languaging is not
separate from what we are doing.
regarding your cherished concept of intentionality, i was suggesting instead
that designers are accountable to others for the changes they propose. we
can develop design methods as ways of accounting for design activities --
which i have done in the semantic turn -- but i find it difficult to develop
methods for being intentional.
nice to hear from you again
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Burnette [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 9:26 PM
To: Klaus Krippendorff
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: On design - again?
On Sep 15, 2009, at 4:01 PM, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
> We all do things that impact the world, but unless we talk of these as
> design, they aren't design.
Klaus: You have argued previously against intentionality in design.
It seems to me that you have a contradiction here. To talk of something as
design is to take an intentional stance in that regard.
However, I like the idea that if we talk of how we deliberately impact the
world we are talking about design. Note the key word is deliberately, ie
intentionally, purposefully. Chuck
|