Dear Carlos,
I've given my definition of design on this list clearly and unambiguously.
It's the result of some detailed review and analysis of several hundred
definitions of design and design process in the literature over a 40 year
period. I suggest it is more useful for theory making, research and Design
practice than Simon's definition but as a fallback, I'm happy to go with
Simon.
It would be helpful if you would write your definition of design and
explain how exactly how distinguishes between design activity and other
kinds of activity.
Best wishes,
Terry
---
Dr Terence Love
PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, AMIMechE, MISI
Director,
Love Services Pty Ltd
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks
Western Australia 6030
Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629
[log in to unmask]
--
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carlos Pires
Sent: Wednesday, 17 September 2014 8:22 AM
To: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design
Subject: Re: background vs design
Dear Terry, Gunnar, everyone,
Addendum to "Art & Design": the use of "Liberal Arts" is even worse. It
should be punished with flogging.
On 16/09/2014, at 23:34, Gunnar Swanson wrote:
> Did you just reverse the order of the list from a and b to b and a? Since
I am already confused by what you are saying, you may want to be clear about
your comparisons. It is obvious to you which is which but your lists often
get murky to me.
Gunnar,
Terry's classification of design disciplines looks like a philosopher naming
animals based on their means of locomotion: it's a point of view, it's true
from afar, but it is wrong upon close inspection and pretty useless anyway.
I would say that this taxonomical approach is wrong in particular in
relation to graphic design, but... it seems that Terry hasn't yet managed to
explain what is the "design" part of "design engineering".
Terry,
At some point you wrote:
> In contrast, ability to know and use a variety of design processes
(waterfall, agile, XP, scrum, CAM, CAE etc) and a variety of design methods
(e.g. all the DfX methods, axiometric design, etc) are clearly of type b).
Why are those "design" activities?
And why do you put so much unrelated stuff in the same bag?
Seriously, what's CAM got to do with scrum or waterfall?
Looks like you only see as "design" things like axiomatic design (not
"axiometric"), which are actually problem-solving tools or strategies that
can be applied to almost any situation. Ergo, in your view, "design" equals
"operations research".
It seems to me you are looking in the wrong place.
That A/B difference you are looking for cannot be found in any of the things
you mention.
Not even for "engineering design".
It can only be found in the WAY you use those things.
"Design" is planning and doing.
You get a new "design" discipline whenever there is a steady demand for
something that needs to be planned and done.
If there was no WWW, there would be no "web design".
If everybody was content with sitting on the floor, there would be no
"furniture design".
If we were in paradise before the fall, there would be no "fashion design".
We call it "design" because every instance of it needs some planning at some
point.
Does every instance get actually "designed"? Of course not, because planning
has some requisites, and these are many times ignored. But that's another
problem. Like we say in my country, "Spring doesn't end just because one
swallow dies". The fact that there are a lot of people making garbage and
calling it "design" doesn't mean it actually is.
And the same goes for those A/B items in the graphic design curricula.
I can tell you that some 10 years ago I was a teacher in a Graphic Design
undergrad program, and when I arrived there the curriculum had disciplines
like "Audiovisuals", "Multimedia" and "Informatics". Fortunately, I then had
the chance to restructure the curriculum - the only good thing that came
from the Bologne convention was this chance to get rid of all that garbage.
PS for Terry:
Your view of artists' place in the history of design is a bit skewed.
It is funny, because I found the exact opposite slant in a History of Design
class some years ago...
I'll try to address this on another occasion.
Best regards,
==================================
Carlos Pires
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
-------------------------------------------------------------
Design & New Media MFA // Communication Design PhD Student @ FBA-UL
Check the project blog:
http://thegolemproject.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|