Dear Lubomir,
I really don’t know if your rant on dictionaries and the past had anything to do with my post, but since it replies to it, I assume it is.
So first,
I’m not claiming that Noah Webster had a perfect definition of design.
For the matter, I am not claiming any validity of any definition of Design in 1828 can be valid today as, if so, valid in 1828.
I’m sure I will not try even to convince you that the 1800’s were an important period o look upon related to ours. Words like technology and methodology were coined in that time but maybe it is not interesting to understand why. A first industrial revolution was pumping in full power, A National Academy of Design was founded in New York and a Government School of Design was founded in London… Maybe it is not interesting for you, but, for me, a part (the major part) of being a scholar is to be able to look directly to the past.
Secondly, by conjuring Webster, I was not conjuring a general public dictionary, nor a a dead voice, I was trying to remind Terry that even if he may claim that epistemologically Aesthetics have nothing to do with design, that was not the case a couple of centuries ago. And maybe it is in that period where we can find the roots for whatever situation we are on today. I think that doing this is part of building up a notion about a term and not a word.
So, by understanding better that aesthetics was, in fact, the deepest conceptual root of design in the early XIX century, Terry could understand better why can he can claim, today, that it has nothing to do with it. (And, I humbly think that I was doing what an historian would do: look upon sources of the time. If you want more references other than a dictionary on that period you can easily remember several posts of mine about it.)
Having arrived here, I’m not sure if you are trying to exclude History from this discussion, or if you are all for it.
If you are trying to exclude history from a scholarly discussing about a concept or a term, that’s OK with me, but I’m out (as I have been for so long in this list).
Since you are kin on the difference of words and terms, just to friendly nag you a little bit more, here follows a quotation from Sir Henry Wotton in the 17th century (I’m afraid you will find nothing relevant in English on design prior to the 16th century):
"Therefore first (to beginne with Picture) we are to observe whether it bee well drawne, (or as more elegant artisans tearme it) well Design’d;"
(Wotton 1623, 87) Wotton, Henry. 1623. The Elements of Architecture. Facsimile Edition, Farnborough, Hants: Gregg International Publishers.
Warm regards,
Eduardo Corte-Real
IADE- Universidade Europeia, Lisboa
> No dia 30/05/2019, às 14:55, Lubomir Savov Popov <[log in to unmask]> escreveu:
>
> Hello every one,
>
> I have a problem with the method of thinking in this discussion and in particular with the reference to general public dictionaries. These dictionaries are intended for communicating a convention to the general public. They are not intended as terminological resources in disciplinary or scientific (or you name it) discourses. There is a difference between a word and a term. General dictionaries are about words. Specialized disciplinary reference sources are about terms.
>
> When we talk in this scholarly discussion, list we should refer to scholarly dictionaries/glossaries/you name it. Scholarly handbooks, encyclopedias. The reason: we are talking about concepts and terms, not words. Leave the words and their stories for everyday parlance. Use in your scholarly debates scholarly reference sources.
>
> I come from a scholarly tradition where discussions and debates are informed by the conventions developed in the academic community. Academics spend life time working on a particular concept or term. They understand what is a concept, what is a term, how are they produced, defined, refined, and how should they be used. They don't support their arguments with 15th century documents because they know that in the 15th century people and activities were different. It is about culture, and the evolution of culture. Design today is different than design was fifty years ago. The thinking about design today is different. Both design and its many fields evolve, cross-pollinate, morph, mutate, and so on; and so should be the concepts and definitions of design. And so should be our discussion about these concepts, definitions, and terms.
>
> Right now this discussion is ridiculous, and the fact that it has drawn so much attention and so many participants, this fact informs me that this is the state of the art in the design research community. It is sad. I am sorry to say this, but there were ridiculous visions about design. And people insist, and persist, and fight to defend them. I can understand that someone might propose a one-sided conceptualization. But after they are reminded, they can wisely get the feedback and continue musing at a higher level, using the feedback.
>
> Please consider my rant as a friendly outburst. I mean friendly, I want that we are friends. I know that the people on this list are among the best and the brightest in the design research community. But at the same time, take a minute, count to 10 (or 100?) and try to see the discussion in a new light.
>
> Thank you very much,
>
> Lubomir
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of ecr gmail
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 9:02 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: A definition of design must also exclude as well as include
>
> Hi Terry, João, Arjun, David,
>
> First of all let me clarify that I don’t believe that Noah Webster was thinking about prototypes when he mentioned medals. I believe that he was mentioning precisely a drawing before even a prototype. That’s why he writes: "The idea or scheme”.
>
> Also I must clarify that was not saying that all first ideas are aesthetical.
> What I was saying was that a first idea externalized (in Webster’s days by a “drawing", "a scheme", "a sketch" or "general view") has a value that can not be much more than aesthetic due to its almost immateriality. It’s Ethical endeavour starts right after its formalization.
>
> Finally, I don’t think that "almost everyone on this list is using the term aesthetic in its recent sense to mean beauty”. The level of education on this list indicates a rather more elaborated comprehension of the term aesthetics. Which may differ from people to people but it is way more complex than simply beauty.
>
> Having this in mind, I think that the most promising meaning of Design in 1828, and still relevant to us was:
>
> “ 6. In music, the invention and conduct of the subject; the disposition of every part, and the general order of the whole.”
>
> What a Beautiful metaphor for today ! (I’m saying Beautiful on purpose)
>
> warm regards,
>
> Eduardo CR
>
>> No dia 30/05/2019, às 11:59, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> escreveu:
>>
>> Hi Eduardo,
>>
>> Yes, I'm assuming that the 'first idea' is only a part of the activity of designing.
>>
>> A question. What is there to suggest that any idea or first thought is intrinsically and essentially aesthetical?
>>
>> I suggest many 'first thoughts' are not essentially aesthetic and some first thoughts have no aesthetic dimension at all - unless you are using the words to mean something different?
>>
>> I'd like to see the argument for your claim that first thoughts are in their 'firstness, aesthetical by nature'. This is not at all obvious to me nor does it align with any theory of cognition I'm aware of. It is the equivalent of saying that all first thoughts are functional in nature, which I would also have problems with . Again unless you are using the words differently?
>>
>> I'm aware of the original meaning of 'aesthetic' as only referring to perception via feelings. This was before the Art marketers got hold of the term and perverted it into only meaning beauty.
>>
>> I'm happy to decide to use the term aesthetic in either way, but I suggest one can't have both at the same time as they are contradictory. Also I suspect that almost everyone on this list is using the term aesthetic in its recent sense to mean beauty.
>>
>> Warm regards,
>> Terry
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
>> related research in <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of
>> eduardocorte-real_iade
>> Sent: Thursday, 30 May 2019 6:29 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: A definition of design must also exclude as well as
>> include
>>
>> Hi Terry again,
>> I would prefer that you had choose the 5th meaning "In manufactories, the figures with which workmen enrich their stuffs, copied from painting or draughts. “ By the way, the first meaning from the same 1828 dictionary (almost 200 years ago) was:
>> "1. A plan or representation of a thing by an outline; sketch; general view; first idea represented by visible lines; as in painting or architecture.”
>>
>> What seems to be separating us is, first, this “first idea”.
>> What you appear to stand for in your “overall activity of designing” is precisely what comes after the “first idea”.
>> For me, this “outlined” first idea lacks the materiality of its future implementation, development and production. It is, by its nature, purely aesthetically perceived because its absence of materiality. Your prototyping example is a step further away from this first idea. So, a step further away from the essence of design (It can be made by another person than the one that had the idea and externalized it). So, if we assume that design is an intellectual activity, we must assume that the first externalized idea is closer to design as an intelectual activity and thus, in its firstsness, aesthetical by nature. And this, Arjun, by the way, in my opinion, is going to the core of the questions that allowed design spread throughout so many activities (all intelectual).
>>
>> Terry wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> What I was suggesting is that it is really useful to get a clearer research understanding of all the details of the design activity (especially when one is exploring the details of design cognition and automation).
>>>
>>> To do this, I propose it is helpful in research and theory making terms to view the aesthetic activities as epistemologically distinct from the overall activity of designing (still with the idea that aesthetics are a part of designing) and avoid blurring 'designing and aesthetics' into a single muddy conceptual hole.
>>
>> So, it looks like a bit different from " I'm seriously arguing that aesthetics is NOT part of design.”
>> And since you reason "still with the idea that aesthetics are a part of designing”, I might agree with you in "avoid blurring 'designing and aesthetics' into a single muddy conceptual hole" if the research and theory on design would leave out the elements that can not, by any means, be epistemologically connected with aesthetics.
>>
>> so, in the end, I agree with you.
>>
>> warm regards,
>>
>> Eduardo Corte-Real
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
