All,
I am sure we have all noticed references to (failures of or problems with) the "design" of the Japanese nuclear reactors. But what is the status of this term? And how might elucidating what is meant by "design" here throw light on understanding what we are doing?
I put this out as an open question because I don't think there is a pre-conceived answer. Where answering this question becomes important is in regard to how we picture and make claims for design; at extreme, as limited professional field, or conversely as an activity undertaken by all (differently Simon, Papanek, Fry). I have long been dissatisfied by the manichean alternative posed by this model. Does the use of the word 'design" in relation to the operating configuration and disposition (the capabilities) of the Fukushima plant suggest this third road: design as the organization of the potential capabilities of a thing or system?
A second, and not incidental, question is: to what extent does the failure of the Fukushima plant throw up the generic failure of purely technological models of design with respect to the construction, operation and implication(s) of complex systems?
Cheers
Clive
Clive Dilnot
Professor of Design Studies
Parsons School of Design/
New School University
Room #731, 7th Floor
6 E16th St
New York
NY 10011
T. (1)-212-229-8916 x1481
|