JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  September 2009

PHD-DESIGN September 2009

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: On design - again?

From:

Susan Hagan <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Susan Hagan <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:50:23 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (143 lines)

Dear Klaus,

Maybe language is failing us in this situation. You see aspects of my post
as beside the point. I'm glad that you were clear. Maybe I'm wrong, so
here's my quick summary.

In this thread, I believe that Terry notes design activity is central to the
discussion and later states that the activity can be carried out with or
without language. Lubomir sees conceptualizing as central to the discussion,
with language being a tool used to communicate that process. And if I've
read you correctly, in your reply to Lubomir, you view language as core to
conceptualization and relational activity as core to the concept of design.

You state: 
>the poets i know struggle with new metaphors to guide their articulations,
>considered by others as poetry. without acceptance by others, it may be
>considered uninspiring or gibberish -- regardless what caused it.

I agree with Terry that language as the keystone to design activity is
limiting, and I agree with Lubomir that language is sometimes a tool for
translation. I agree with you that language as conceptual and relational is
also sometimes core to the idea of design. But I also call the relational
aspect into question as you present it above. Having been rejected by his
peers, Van Gogh was no less brilliant.

You state that Terry, Lubomir, and I are looking for some kind of objective
certainty. I don't know what Terry and Lubomir are looking for, but what I'm
looking for is evidence that calls assumptions into question when those
assumptions don't seem to fit the evidence --which leads me to an objective
uncertainty about language.

That objective uncertainty extends to your example about the difficulties
students have with drawing when they can't name parts. I'm sure that you're
familiar with "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" and what happens for
those students when they quit trying to name any parts--they often become
proficient. 

Further, a few years back, I conducted a pilot study of struggling learners
and expert learners trying to master visual composition. This was a think
aloud protocol. The struggling learner could verbalize her design process
with ease, but she didn't have command over that process. The expert learner
constantly fell silent. In the activity of designing, the expert learner
struggled only when he tried to find words for what he was doing. Now this
is only an "n" of 2, and doesn't lead to objective certainty. But it does
make me question the pedestal on which language has been placed.
Categorizing creativity and all forms of organization as language seems to
me to potentially rob core aspects of design activity and design itself of
its sui generis nature.

I would argue that modality preference can be hypothesized not just as a
preferred way of receiving information, but also as a preferred way of
creating information. I'd like to see more work on this idea. On the one
hand, modality preference suggests that receiving information, the
relational process, can sometimes be accomplished without language. On the
other, creating information can sometimes be accomplished without language
as well.

Finally, you say:
> identification takes place in conversations, is relational, and when we
> discuss design we use language relationally, not cognitively.

Of course the discussion between stakeholder and designer is relational.
That part of the process often relies on language. Sometimes language is
most likely a tool for understanding another process, and at other times it
lies at the core of invention. But the stakeholder agrees with that
identifier only when the designer meets the stakeholder's needs. In meeting
those needs, design engages in a process that is cognitive and kinetic and
verbal and non-verbal. I'd compare it to the atom, which can be observed as
a wave and a particle. To call it only a wave, or most importantly a wave,
or to say that the particle aspect of the atom is really a vave, is to
undermine exploration. So, you are right, a person can call himself jesus
crist and it's just a name -- a tool for identification that won't be
accepted without some underlying, and perhaps unnamable competence.

I hope that we have some common ground.

Best wishes,

Susan


On 9/25/09 12:52 AM, "Klaus Krippendorff" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> dear susan,
> 
> i understand, i think, what you are objecting and i agree with you that
> there are other sensations besides what can be articulated in language.  but
> this is a bit besides the point.  you mention modality preferences and i
> presume you differentiate between preferences for language, touch, smell,
> etc.  these distinctions are not preferred but stated in language and
> investigated accordingly. modality preferences are explanations for why some
> people observe or respond differently according to the modalities we have
> distinguished.  modality preferences are explanation of phenomena that the
> observed subjects may not be aware of and able to articulate = have no
> access to without the researcher's language.
> 
> you mention that there are things we know without language.  my favorite
> example is face recognition.  it is difficult to describe someone's face to
> someone else so that the latter can pick the described face out of a mass of
> faces -- unless there is an outstanding feature, like an eye patch, green
> hair, or no nose. but after knowing jane and mary, we can distinguish
> between them by their face, not by asking for their name.  but note that
> here a  face helps us not to confuse jane with mary, which is not part of
> the face but of what we know about jane and mary.
> 
> a friend if mine is an art teacher who teaches drawing.  when students make
> mistakes or feel it doesn't capture the essence of a face they rarely can
> articulate why is this so.  my friend found that most mistakes are made
> where we do not words to describe it.  students can draw a nose, the eyes, a
> mouth, but what they have difficulties translating from what they see is,
> for example, the relationship between a nose and the cheek for which there
> are no words to describe it.  the point is that we see and distinguish the
> parts of faces through the words we have for them and become very uncertain
> where we don't have names for it.
> 
> but all these phenomena are besides the point we were discussing -- as i
> understand it.  design as an activity may rely on a lot of intuition,
> non-articulable senses, and what makes a good designers is not necessarily
> describable with some precision.  however, professional designers do
> identify themselves as designers to each other and to their stakeholders who
> in turn may affirm or deny their claim for the word designer to be
> acceptable in the ongoing conversation.  saying i am jesus crist, doesn't
> make me jesus crist, unless a lot of people treat me as jesus crist.
> identification takes place in conversations, is relational, and when we
> discuss design we use language relationally, not cognitively.
> 
> note that design is more abstract than, say, the shoes i am wearing, which
> is more abstract than the feeling of wearing them.  you feel that feeling
> but may not be clear about what it consists of until you can tell yourself
> or someone, that they are too short, not wide enough, or pressing on a
> particular part of your foot.  when we are talking of what designers do, how
> we define design, we don't just feel but argue, bounce opinions off each
> other, all of which takes place in conversations.
> 
> i think you, terry, and lubomir are looking for some kind of objective
> certainty, a language of ideally accurate representation.  i am looking for
> language as interaction that produces how we see each other, who we are
> consequentially, and that let us justify our designs to others whom we need
> to work with.
> 
> klaus   

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager