Dear Klaus
Yes its precisely my point that discovery implies something existing.
About the fire example:
Perhaps the problem with the fire discussion is that in English (and i think in e.g. German) the word "fire" has two or more connotations that are split in Norwegian into "brann" meaning a wildfire or natural fire like a forrest fire or a catastrophic fire like a house burning down and "ild", the fire in an inndoor enclosed fire place or "bål" which is any controlled fire out doors or a fire in an open indoor fireplace. The latter two are the harnessed and designed fires...... ? ( the etymologically same word as fire, "fyr" means an igniting fire like lighting a cigarett. Who said Norwegian was a poor language? :-) )
Harold clearly points to the latter two while in the discussion we sometimes refer to the first?
Why do you think that calling the designs for creating ild or bål is problematic regarding design? I think its a pretty ordinary design process: modification of a material with technologies, in this case the material is fire. Some materials are easy to shape and control, others are less. In a time where we design for complex human activity systems and emergence it seems like a pretty simple material to shape and control.
I think Harolds point is just to provide an example that many processes that are actually design processes commonly are not regarded as such. I think he is successfull.
Obviously there is a blurred boundary between design and technological development but i dont want to go into that discussion.
Sendt fra min Sony Xperia™-smarttelefon
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|