Hi Terry,
I will stick to my small footnote and leave the bigger picture to others.
David
--
blog: http://communication.org.au/blog/
web: http://communication.org.au
Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
CEO • Communication Research Institute •
• helping people communicate with people •
Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
Phone: +61 (0)3 9005 5903
Skype: davidsless
60 Park Street • Fitzroy North • Melbourne • Australia • 3068
On 23 Aug 2014, at 1:22 pm, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear David and Ken and everyone,
> Hi David, thank you for your post quoting Moholy-Nagy. What you posted is an
> aspect of what I've been trying to illustrate: that design research and
> theorymaking about design and design thinking was well-established long
> before the UK conference in 1963. In reply to your comment about
> 'prejudice', my concern about the worlds of the Art and Design traditions is
> their over-parochiality and the ways they are limited in their consideration
> of larger design theory developments outside those fields. This kind of
> parochiality and limited view also exists in engineering design, and was a
> reason I moved to Art and Design fields and the Humanities 20 years ago.
> It's great the picture of design that Moholy-Nagy presented started to
> include a larger understanding of design.
> Taking an even bigger view, however, Moholy-Nagy is only a minor bit player
> in design then and now compared to the many not so publicly acknowledged
> large national and international industrial design teams and organisations
> in manufacturing, transport, textiles, chemistry, logistics, mining and
> military arenas of that era and the couple of centuries before. The
> academic difference, and this is at the heart of the problem I've started
> pointing to, is that Moholy-Nagy was both part of the academic
> infrastructure and developed a public persona in that milieu and there are
> self-serving benefits in academics reifying individuals such as
> Moholy-Nagy. The significance allocated to Moholy-Nagy's work by design
> academics seems more than a little odd and unbalanced when compared with the
> enormously greater, more significant, and more extensive, design activities
> and theory developments in industrial complexes worldwide undertaken by
> designers, design researchers and design theorists outside academia. The
> extensive design and design theory developments of these hundreds of
> thousands of designers (mostly in engineering design) has remained
> relatively hidden to academics because those outside academia did not write
> academic texts or teach in academia, and because academics have been
> obsessed with an emphasis on evidence being publications, especially
> publications in the academic publishing tradition. This has led to
> misunderstandings about the whole of design, due to overlooking the much
> larger historical reality.
> In this, I'm not criticising Art and Design fields. As Eduardo reminds,
> there are two traditions in design activity. The first is older, from Visual
> Arts and drawing via the term design. The second, is more recent (over the
> last 3 hundred years) mainly from engineering with the idea of a design as
> a plan and designing as making such a plan. My interests are with the
> second, the idea of design as a plan.
> This idea of design as a plan, however, is what underpins most of the design
> theory development in Art and Design fields of late. A reality is that
> design theory developments around designing as making a plan have occurred
> substantially earlier in engineering fields than in Art and Design fields.
> This can be seen by reviewing the histories. It is also evident in the
> developments post 1963, and in the trajectories of change of the DRS Council
> membership, the history of publications of Design Studies, and the
> trajectory of involvement in design research in Art and Design fields.
> Taken together, I'm suggesting its helpful to gaining a clearer view of
> developments in design (and design thinking) to:
> 1. Understand that developments in design theory and research occurred a
> long time before academics began to be interested in the 1960s.
> 2. Understand and accept that much of the current academically promoted
> theories of design are problematic and incomplete because of their academic
> origins and the self-serving academic blinkers that limit understanding
> (particularly when crossing disciplinary boundaries, and especially when
> crossing mathematical and humanities boundaries).
> 3. Draw on evidence other than publications, and especially
> readily-available publications. Much, perhaps most, that is important in
> design theory and design research is never written down in an academic
> form. It is either not written, or remains in the realms of dark or grey
> publication (company internal reports, memos, bulletin boards such as this
> list, etc).
>
> Dear Ken, Evidence, in whatever its form, is always incomplete.
> Understanding history requires discussion and identifying pathways of
> reasoning that can be used to develop better understanding. These can later
> be tested against evidence. In my posts, I'm mainly proposing pathways for
> reasoning and analysis that seem to offer improved understanding and better
> sense-making on the basis of evidence I have seen or read. As I have said
> before, I am not trying to prove them as true to you or anyone else. They
> are intended to be helpful insights. If you want to test them against
> evidence, then please identify the evidence and go ahead. I look forward to
> seeing your publications about your findings. As I've also said, if you use
> ideas I've suggested, I would be grateful if you would please ensure you
> cite them referring to my posts on this list in the conventional manner.
> Finally, just wondering, are you Stephanie's supervisor?
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Saturday, 23 August 2014 3:02 AM
> To: phd-design
> Subject: Re: How 'Design Thinking Research' and 'Design Thinking' are
> related (or not)?
>
> On 22 Aug 2014, at 2:50 pm, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> This is easily identified in terms of design practices. I'd suggest the
> burden of proof for those from Art and Design is to identify ANY aspects of
> design theory that have been developed in the Art and Design realms before
> they were identified in engineering design. Can you think of any, and
> provide evidence?
>
> Stephanie,
> I do not intend to get drawn into this debate and its attendant spirals of
> pointless abstraction. Nor do I think there is any point in engaging with
> Terry's prejudices about Art and Design. I'd just like to remind this list
> of an historical footnote that I have mentioned before. You might find it
> useful in your research on the origins of design thinking and design
> research.
>
> I'm quoting from an epaper on our web site which provides an overview of
> information design.
> http://communication.org.au/product/information-design-an-overview/
>
>
>> Design thinking
>> The advances in ideas and processes which information designers use
>> derive in part from other design disciplines such as architecture,
>> town planning, product design and graphic design. In the 1930s, design
>> educators and thinkers such as Moholy-Nagy were beginning to
>> articulate a distinctive design point of view:
>>>> Design has many connotations. It is the organisation of materials
>>>> and processes in the most productive, economic way, in a harmonious
>>>> balance of all elements necessary for a certain function. it is not
>>>> a matter of facade, of mere external appearance; rather it is the
>>>> essence of products and institutions, penetrating and comprehensive.
>>>> Designing is a complex and intricate task. It is the integration of
>>>> technological, social and economic requirements, biological
>>>> necessities, and the psychophysical effects of materials, shape,
>>>> colour, volume, and space:
>>>> thinking in relationships. (Moholy-Nagy 1938)
>> At the heart of this point of view is a recognition that design takes
>> place in a complex social and material environment and that good
>> design involves taking account of many factors to arrive at a
>> successful outcome. Moreover, to create artefacts that will work well
>> in these complex environments-whether these artefacts are buildings,
>> towns, websites, or medicine information-requires a specific set of
>> intellectual skills and craft methods, Moholy-Nagy's 'thinking in
>> relationships'.
>
>
>> Moholy-Nagy L 1938
>> The New Vision: Fundamentals of design, printing, sculpture,
>> architecture (Trans: Hoffman D M) New York: Norton
>
> Warm Regards,
>
> David
> --
>
>
>
> blog: http://communication.org.au/category/blog-david-sless-soap-box/
> web: http://communication.org.au
>
> Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
> CEO . Communication Research Institute . . helping people communicate with
> people .
>
> Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
> Phone: +61 (0)3 9005 5903
> Skype: davidsless
>
> 60 Park Street . Fitzroy North . Melbourne . Australia . 3068
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|