Dear Ken and friends,
Not long ago I proposed a division on periods of design history.
Pre History of Design (before the emergence of the word "Design" in
English and the word "Disegno" in Italian. Early History of Design after
that emergence until the institution of the first Design Schools in 1830's
and Design History afterwards.
You can find the arguments in "The Word “Design”: Early Modern English
Dictionaries and Literature on Design, 1604 - 1837" at
https://www.herts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/12405/WPD_vol4_cortereal.pdf
here's part of the abstract:
"It is normally accepted that Design History starts with mechanization and
mass industrialization; however, it is also acknowledged that the word
„design‟ was related to the production of artefacts since the end of the
sixteenth century. This era concurs with the „early modern‟ period of
Western history. This coincidence with the progressive constitution of
modernity, which is not of course a coincidence at all for the emergence of
„design‟ as an internal aspect of early modern society that was to become
fully existent and further self-defined in the nineteenth century, is
remarkable and deserves to be examined. This study‟s main objective is to
clarify the origin and maturation of the word through the revelation that
design related to the arts (as project drawing) provided the origin for the
contemporary use of the word, as well as contributing to institutionalizing
its discipline as a practical and intellectual activity.
This study‟s main objective is to clarify the origin and maturation of the
word through the revelation that design related to the arts (as project
drawing) provided the origin for the contemporary use of the word, as well
as contributing to institutionalizing its discipline as a practical and
intellectual activity.
Greetings,
Eduardo
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]
> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Lars Albinsson posted a note in the thread on identifying and labelling
> periods in design history. Lars quoted Swedish scientist Hans Rosling on
> the concept that “time is our home.” (Rosling borrowed this from the title
> of a 1991 play by Lars Norén.)
>
> This puts me in mind of an apposite comment concerning time and
> periodicity in design history. Stephen Allard and others have been
> addressing the challenge of how to name the current and recent periods of
> design history. Last Thursday, scientists pushed design history back by
> roughly 700,000 years at the “fuzzy front end” of human evolution.
>
> Previously, the oldest known designed artefacts were tools made 2,500,000
> years ago by homo habilis (see Friedman 1997: 53-55). In the May 21 issue
> of Nature, Sonia Harmand (et al. 2015) reported on the discovery of tools
> at a reliably dated 3,300,000-year-old site. (See abstract below).
>
> Time is our home, indeed.
>
> Ken
>
> Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The
> Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Elsevier in
> Cooperation with Tongji University Press | Launching in 2015
>
> Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and
> Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University
> Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne
> University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia
>
> —
>
> References
>
> Friedman, Ken. 1997. “Design Science and Design Education.”The Challenge
> of Complexity. Peter McGrory, ed. Helsinki: University of Art and Design
> Helsinki, 54-72. Available at URL:
> https://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman
>
> Harmand, Sonia, Jason E. Lewis, Craig S. Feibel, Christopher J. Lepre,
> Sandrine Prat, Arnaud Lenoble, Xavier Boës, Rhonda L. Quinn, Michel Brenet,
> Adrian Arroyo, Nicholas Taylor, Sophie Clément, Guillaume Daver,
> Jean-Philip Brugal, Louise Leakey, Richard A. Mortlock, James D. Wright,
> Sammy Lokorodi, Christopher Kirwa, Dennis V. Kent, and Hélène Roche. 2015.
> “3.3-million-year-old stone tools from Lomekwi 3, West Turkana, Kenya.”
> Nature 521, 310–315 (21 May 2015). doi:10.1038/nature14464
>
> —
>
> Abstract
>
> Human evolutionary scholars have long supposed that the earliest stone
> tools were made by the genus Homo and that this technological development
> was directly linked to climate change and the spread of savannah
> grasslands. New fieldwork in West Turkana, Kenya, has identified evidence
> of much earlier hominin technological behaviour. We report the discovery of
> Lomekwi 3, a 3.3-million-year-old archaeological site where in situ stone
> artefacts occur in spatiotemporal association with Pliocene hominin fossils
> in a wooded palaeoenvironment. The Lomekwi 3 knappers, with a developing
> understanding of stone’s fracture properties, combined core reduction with
> battering activities. Given the implications of the Lomekwi 3 assemblage
> for models aiming to converge environmental change, hominin evolution and
> technological origins, we propose for it the name ‘Lomekwian’, which
> predates the Oldowan by 700,000 years and marks a new beginning to the
> known archaeological record.
>
> --
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
