Dear Jerry, Phil and all,
These analyses work for simple systems/object or situations whose behaviour remains much the same over time.
Until recently, Designers who used metaphor only designed simple systems/object/situations.
There is a current claim that the fields of designers who use metaphor are competent to design complex systems (e.g. create design or business strategy).
The defining characteristic of complex systems is multiple feedback loops that they change their behaviour.
The character of their thingness changes dynamically. In many cases, their thingness changes without being under the control and outside the predictive capacity of humans without significant technical support.
It seems obvious the current discussions about theories of metaphor don't broadly apply to complex design situations in the same way that they apply to the usual simple design situations that designers design.
I'm interested in your thoughts on how theories about metaphor might apply in these new complex design arenas? Does it require a new view on metaphor? Is it that metaphor only works in a limited way in only some aspects of complex design?
These are important questions. If metaphor is a central basis for design tools of those who claim their design skills apply in the new complex design fields, and metaphor theory doesn't apply, then it suggests that most of the other design skills don’t work in complex design and the claim is false.
Best wishes,
Terry
____________________
Dr. Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM
School of Design and Art
Director Design-focused Research Group, Design Out Crime Research Group
Researcher, Digital Ecosystems and Business Intelligence Institute
Associate, Planning and Transport Research Centre
Curtin University, PO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845
Mob: 0434 975 848, Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629, [log in to unmask]
Visiting Professor, Member of Scientific Council
UNIDCOM/ IADE, Lisbon, Portugal
Honorary Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development
Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
____________________
-----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 Jerry Diethelm
Sent: Sunday, 4 April 2010 6:55 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: On Metaphor
Hi Phil,
Thanks for your response and questions. Here¹s a short answer to part of
it:
On 4/3/10 5:13 AM, "Phil Jones" <[log in to unmask]> >
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Your commentary on "seeing asŠ" raised some really interesting
> questions for me. Would you agree that any object, such as a wall, is
> an access point to "encyclopedic knowledge" in that such an object
> might be an element within a variety of different conceptual frames. A
> particular wall might well fit within different scenarios, for
> example, a scenario in which an over zealous property owner asserts a
> claim on a piece of land, or a scenario in which a responsible pet
> owner prevents his dogs from wandering away, or a member of the local
> community highlights local heritage by building a wall in a particular
> style, and so forth.
I'd prefer to agree that designers need to and can be taught to widen their
framing awareness of the potential of a thing, be it a wall or otherwise.
The object of "seeing asŠ", at least for me, isn't encyclopedic knowledge,
but as a preparation for an expanded qualitative making that does its job
AND reaches beyond one-dimensional, first-order, solutions to design
problems. In your language, it serves to first identify and then to
integrate in a design a series of potential scenarios that ³want²
expression.
The goals here are to create designs that do more work (purposefully
integrate more qualities) and therefore have a greater qualitative
resonance; that have a wider potential affordance; and that carry more
strata into the re-cognition that is meaning in experience. It's hard not
to do that to some degree. My point is that the expanded awareness of
³seeing as...² enables the designer to be in a better position to direct and
control the process of composition and expression.
The opposite of what I'm describing would be Minimalism, the purposeful
minimizing of metaphor, where the compositional strategy is to limit the
potential for reference in order to sharpen the experience. It can be a
useful compositional strategy for giving emphasis.
Yes, "seeing asŠ" is clearly a metaphor. It's in quotes so that you have to
imagine it in my way as a process concept for importing imagined qualitative
possibilities, facets and dimensions. After all, what¹s a meta for?
Pacific Northwest regards,
jerry
--
Jerry Diethelm
Architect - Landscape Architect
Planning & Urban Design Consultant
Prof. Emeritus of Landscape Architecture
and Community Service € University of Oregon
2652 Agate St., Eugene, OR 97403
€ e-mail: [log in to unmask]
€ web: http://www.uoregon.edu/~diethelm
€ 541-686-0585 home/work 541-346-1441 UO
€ 541-206-2947 work/cell
|