Dear Eduardo and all,
I suspect that the division between designxxx as "depicting" or
sketching, and designxxx as "planning" or intentionality (with, funny
enough, contains phonetically "tension", which relates very
intimately to "project") is the result of a cultural change about the
role of the image and its function of presentation/representation.
What I mean by that is that the status of what an image was in the
15th/16th century shifted from the status of being a presentation of
an otherwise inaccessible reality (it is not only for technical
reasons that Romanesque painting represented the Christ the way they
represented it, or that the early Renaissance paintings represented
irreal sceneries), to the status of being a re/presentation : a look-
alike, almost metric (with the formalisation of the perspective),
picture of the reality.
As Eduardo presents it, the act of sketching (and the status of the
image) around that time blurs both : a beautiful image is true to its
subject, not to the way the model appears to the painter. The painter
is the instrument that reveals truth, and we perceive truth in grace
(we perceive truth through our senses, hence aesthetics in the
meaning of Baumgarten). Hence also the (technical) discussion —which
had a long legacy— in Alberti, for instance, about the relation of
the line to the colour.
And, by the way, in French, the word "dessein" (which now means
intention) was standing for both a drawing and a plan. The spelling
"dessin" (sketch, drawing) appeared and stabilised in the 18th
century. There is even a course of architecture of +/-1830, if I
remember well, that has a paragraph about the odds of distinguishing.
Best regards,
Jean
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|