Welcome to my foray into the blogosphere.
I timed the launch of this blog with the Pecha Kucha presentation to give you an opportunity to discuss the two visions of design that I presented. I would love to hear your thoughts on my presentation, especially from such a diverse crowd.
Do you agree? Do you disagree? Is my interpretation of Buchanan and Mau wrong? What’s your vision?
As I finish my thesis studies, I will be posting my ideas on this blog. Sign up for my RSS feed to be kept informed of when and what I post.
Background info
If you found my presentation too fast and you are confused; or, you just want some more information, take a look at the other posts on this blog, plus the following background info:
- Mapping design as a discipline, 5step process for defining design (PDF 162KB)
View my diagram that tries to map the disciplines and then situate design among them. This diagram also includes a 5-step process for how to define design (or any word like design). - Buchanan, Richard. “Design Research and the New Learning”, Design Issues, 2001. 17(4), 3-23.
Richard Buchanan’s paper in which he gives an explicit definition of design (see page 9) - Bruce Mau, Massive Change
Bruce Mau’s Massive Change website, his definition is in paragraph six. The site was launched in conjunction with his Massive Change exhibition and book in 2004. - Pecha Kucha presentation (PDF 1.8MB)
Summary of presentation’s main points
- Bruce Mau and Richard Buchanan are defining design (as a discipline) in too broad a manner
- Buchanan and Mau’s conception of design, places design as an umbrella discipline for all ‘applied’ disciplines, like engineering, genetics, politics and economics
- Defining design is less a philosophic problem than it is an issue of practicality. For example, what is the use of such a broad discipline as Buchanan and Mau are proposing
2 responses so far ↓
Jeff W // December 17, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
This is an old thread, I know, but I’ve stumbled across it in my research of the Graduate VCD program at UofA, and feel that I must comment. I disagree with your stance on Buchanan and Mau’s definition of Design. To be frank, i agree with them. To put Design in the finite role of “applied” as you did in your diagram, you seem to imply that the larger, broader, elements of the design process do not exist. If I were to redo your diagram (Sec114 of the pdf), design would be the entire process of:
1) Finding the Truth and understanding
2) Defining the needs and aspirations, then planning ways in which to meet them.
3) Executing (or manage the execution of) the plan
The entire process would fall inline with Buchanan and Mau
But, just my opinion.
-Jeff
Robert Andruchow // December 18, 2008 at 1:18 pm |
Hi Jeff, thanks for giving your feedback. It’s great to hear what others think about my diagram/ideas. And, don’t worry about posting late; there really isn’t a deadline for posting.
I highly recommend you watch my presentation on YouTube (click on “Watch in High Quality” just below the video so you can read the slides properly). The video is only 6 minutes so it won’t take much time to watch. I hope the video will clarify the position I’m arguing.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you are misinterpreting slide Sec114. Instead of that slide showing my view of design, it actually is trying to show Buchanan and Mau’s notion of design. The red arrow is meant to indicate how their definition has enlarged the discipline to encompass all applied disciplines (including engineering, genetics, politics, etc), whereas the old view of design (say, from 50 years ago), saw design as one applied discipline among many. I was trying to show that this enlargening of design is a major shift in how academic and practical disciplines have traditionally been categorized. My view is that this enlargening of design is far too ambitious and arrogant. To argue that designers can “design” a political system, economy or animal gene, is simply insulting to the disciplines in which this is clearly their domain of expertise and knowledge: political science, economics and genetics.
For an explicit comparison between my view of design vs Buchanan/Mau see slide Sec120 in the same PDF. My view is the “narrow definition” and Buchanan/Mau is the “broad definition”. I believe the narrow definition is much more realistic and recognizes that design can’t do everything. We are not experts in political science nor economics, so how could we possibly argue that our discipline includes these as sub-disciplines.
From what gather in your comment, you believe that even Buchanan and Mau’s definition of design (which you thought was mine) is too finite or limiting. If this is the case, I have two questions for you that might illustrate my concern with such a broad definition of design:
If your definition of design is even broader than Buchanan and Mau’s definition, doesn’t this necessarily make all disciplines a sub-discipline of design?
If this is the case, what would such a School of Design teach? Does this mean we need to teach our students political science, economics, genetics? Who could possibly teach all these fields in a 4 year program?
To address your specific concern about design “Finding the truth or knowledge”, “Defining/solving needs and aspirations through a plan”, and “Executing this plan”. I agree that during every project we are engaged in each one of these processes to some extent. But on the whole, designers are not primarily concerned with creating knowledge through their work: a building (architecture) doesn’t create knowledge, an iPhone (industrial design) on its own doesn’t create knowledge. Both of these are “applications” of knowledge from physics and psychology (usability). Certainly, while in the process of creating a building or an iPhone the designer learns something and creates knowledge about how to design buildings or iPhones, but this knowledge is incidental, that is, it isn’t the end goal of a building or an iPhone. The same is true for execution. While a designer may be involved in actually building a building or manufacturing an iPhone, these tasks are often left up to specialists (construction for a building, and technicians in a manufacturing-assembly plant).
What do you think? Do you agree with these distinctions?
Thanks again for your feedback,
Robert