Hi all,
One of my favourite definitions / entries on the word design follows on
from the interest in semiosis mentioned in Jude's post nicely.
The entry I mention is by Mihai Nadin, and was published in Encyclopedia of
semiotics. The whole entry is worth reading! Here is a quote from the
entry, and a citation:
"To design means, among other things, to plan, to anticipate according to a
devised course of events in view of a goal, of material and technical
constraints, and under the influence of the environment. Design reflects
the awareness of quality (of objects, actions, representations) and the
expectation of functionality within a framework of shared values. The
environment of design is that of culture."
Nadin, M. (1998). Design. In P. Bouissac (Ed.), Encyclopedia of semiotics.
Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.nadin.ws/archives/283
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 03:13:59 +0000
> From: "CHUA Soo Meng Jude (GPL, PLS)" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Definitions and Etymology of the Word "Design"
>
> Dear friends
> Happy new year!
> I must confess I share Ken's appreciation for Simon's definition of design
> (it is a useful point of departure but I've argued that his lack of a
> substantive moral theory leaves his design theory somewhat truncated, but
> that;s another rstory)
> Still this metion of Flusser by Derek and Eduardo got me very excited!
> I've read Flusser on photography and his damnation (?) of photography and
> textolatry (how texts fail to sign well, but idolatrously) but I've just
> read his On the word Design, thanks to Derek's earlier post
> I really like his reference to the way de-sign connects with the Latin
> etymology of signing, semiosis. And the association with deception is
> rather ingenious. I suppose it's true that when designing, we are in some
> sense performing a semiotic trick. I mean in designing we quite often
> re-shape something, but what also gets reshaped is not its ontic form or
> shape merely but its ontology, its being as experienced - say it becomes
> more beautiful, elegant. We re-assign a different ontology to the thing.
> There's a "re-form" a reformation. There is a kind of deception there. I
> mean its like the crafting of a gestalt, or one of Dali's paintings. Like a
> magician whose swing of the hand sends you looking one way and then
> something else is at play. But the gestalt is a better example. I think
> when we design something, there's this constant re-assigning. Something of
> the old remains, what its original function was, but then at the same time
> the designer very intelligentlyly manages to "fit in" something else, a
> different quality (perhaps aesthetics), and a new ontology is situated in
> that very same thing, instantiated in it. I don't; know if say the
> evolution of martial arts can be called design, but say Iaido, the Japanese
> swordplay - performers are swining swords that those intent to kill (in the
> past) more or less would but now the "sword" is not merely "in instrument
> to kill" but "a spiritual tool" perhaps. We re-assign new meanings to it,
> and of course we also need to reshape certain things (blunt the blade,
> change the katas a little, etc)
> Perhaps there ought to be a special issue on Flusser Studies on his ideas
> on Design. I find Flusser rather stimulating. I don't always agree with
> him, but he's very helpful for getting new insights, or for rearticulating
> our own.
> Jude
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
> research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Eduardo corte-real
> Sent: Monday, 11 January, 2016 2:12 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Definitions and Etymology of the Word "Design"
>
> Dear Derek,
>
> I re read Flusser’s essay and I confirmed my first impression. It is a
> wonderful cunning piece of text but it is not an etymological essay.
> The problem is that he do not provides examples in ancient texts. However,
> his intuitions are generally right.
> Sometimes etymological sources from etymological texts do not provide
> examples. They simply assume that things happened in a certain way because
> of similarities with other words and scholars have been repeating the same
> assumption over the years. I looked upon texts and dictionaries of the
> times in appreciation. If there is anyone that can provide any examples
> from the same times that contradict what I read, I’m more that glad to
> learn more.
> Plus, I chose the only dictionaries available in some periods. For
> instance, I quote Cowdrey’s table of hard words because it was the first
> English dictionary. Bailey’s because it was the first Etymological
> Dictionary. I do not quote Samuel Johnson’s because he mostly repeats and
> corrects Bailey. I quote Noah Webster’s because it was the first American
> English dictionary.
> Recently I discovered that Samuel Johnson (1755, p.574) was the first to
> document “Designer” and not only “Design” (I’ll use this in future articles)
>
> National Institute of Education (Singapore) http://www.nie.edu.sg
>
> DISCLAIMER : The information contained in this email, including any
> attachments, may contain confidential information.
> This email is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) listed above.
> Unauthorised sight, dissemination or any other
> use of the information contained in this email is strictly prohibited. If
> you have received this email by fault, please
> notify the sender and delete it immediately.
>
>
>
--
Adam Girard, MLIS
Ph.D. Student
School of Information and Library Studies
Ph.D. affiliate, UCD Social Science Research Centre
University College Dublin
Ireland
Phone: +353 1 716 7077
Email: [log in to unmask]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
