Dear prof Norman and others,
I agree that it is difficult to characterize the zeit geist you’re part of. The dynamic, innovative European middle ages had no idea that some would call it the dark age, and would have been both surprised and sad.
There is also a difference between the cutting edge of a field, the major market and laggers. There are efforts following gen 1-X going on concurrently. Which is important when trying to answer the original question.
I think this is very well expressed by prof Hans Rosling: “We don’t live in Sweden. Time is our home. Our values are not place-based, they are time-based.”
http://www.thelocal.se/20150513/hans-rosling-im-an-ambassador-for-the-world-in-sweden-connectsweden-tlccu
And I full-heartedly support the DesignX effort.
In fear of evoking the monster ex machina question ”what is design” I will not say more than in my view IT/AI/robots will play a an even more significant role in the next decade.
/Lars
.........................................................................
LARS ALBINSSON
+46 (0) 70 592 70 45
[log in to unmask]
AFFILIATIONS:
MAESTRO MANAGEMENT AB
CALISTOGA SPRINGS RESEARCH INSTITUTE
LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY
.........................................................................
27 maj 2015 kl. 23:54 skrev Don Norman <[log in to unmask]>:
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Lars Albinsson <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> I’ld like to suggest Nigel Cross' idea of generations and argue that we
> are (still) in the 3rd generation design.
>
> [Cross, N. (2007). Forty years of design research. Design Studies, 28(1),
> 1-4.]
>
I suspect naming of generations will always fail during the generation
bing named. In art, they still have't figured out what comes after
post-modernism, except to agree that we are now in the stage that comes
after. Post modernism itself is the stage after modernism. A few decades
after any generation, design and art historians give it an appropriate name.
In design, although i agree that much design is in Nigel's 3rd generation,
I'm hoping that the form i am trying to develop is at least 4th generation
(complex sociotechnical systems). But is it really 4? Maybe it is 5 or 6
or 3.015
When we in the DesignX group wrote our little manifesto, we started calling
it Design 3.0, but then we realized it was really 4.0, except some people
thought it might be 5.0. Or maybe 12. What number it is depends upon how
fine a distinction is being made and when we think design
started (Wedgwood?) So we finally decided to stop the numbers and just say
X.
http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/designx_a_future_pa.html
http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/why_designx.html
An aside: DesignX is "new" only in the sense of being less than a decade
old. We have now discovered numerous groups around the
world attempting similar approaches to large-scale systems. The goal is to
join forces with them. And every one of those groups gives itself a
different name.
For example: The Systemic Design Research Network http://systemic-design.net
and their "Relating Systems Thinking & Design Symposium." What generation
number do they belong to? Answer: Who cares? What matters is what they (we)
produce.
Don
Don Norman
Director, DesignLab, UC San Diego
[log in to unmask] designlab.ucsd.edu/ www.jnd.org <http://www.jnd.org/>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|