>
> And now for an even more biased, acerbic, personal opinion: Too large
> a proportion of the good writings in design are about the history of
> design and about how designers think. Personally, neither of these advance
> the state of the art of design. Let sociologists of science and
> psychologists study how designers think: why do we call those studies
> design? They aren't. As for history, yes it is important, but that does not
> move the theory and practice forward in generalizable, constructive ways.
>
If Design is not a generalizable practice, why research should be?
History analysis and case studies had been used by designers as one of the
most usefull sources for learning and inspiration. They highlight the
complexity of each context and the ethical and aesthetical choices from
people who needed to act there.
If you give designers a general theory of Design and ask them to apply that
to their practice, they won't start until you give them an example. That's
not a limitation from designers, that's the way they work. Most of design
practice is taught, learnt and disseminated by examples.
As Richard Buchanan put in his Wicked Problems article: "design is
fundamentally concerned with the particular, and there is no science of the
particular."
--
.
.{ Frederick van Amstel }.
http://fredvanamstel.com
|