Discussions:Design and Science
^
14
^
Paola Antonelli 1/12/2016
Permalink|Reply
Private. Collaborators only.
Regarding design, its role in devising adaptive systems, and efficiency: This becomes really huge, but for some–myself included–an effort towards formal elegance is necessary for a planning exercise to be considered design. That formal elegance could be impalpable, as for instance in the design of a scent, but it needs to be acknowledged as a tension within the process. The outcome of that effort can be a failure, but the effort needs to be there. I other words, I consider the Interstate Highway System a design project, while the Keystone Pipeline is not, even though they are both systems – Paola Antonelli
^
8
^
Michael Dila 1/20/2016
Permalink|Reply
Private. Collaborators only.
I am not sure precisely what you mean by formal elegance. It sounds like an epistemological aesthetic for maths or something. In any case, it seems like you are trying to make an important distinction between projects like the Interstate system and the Keystone pipeline and I’d like to undersatnd what it is.
^
1
^
Iain Perkin 3/24/2016
Permalink|Reply
Private. Collaborators only.
^
2
^
Boris Anthony 3/14/2016
Permalink|Reply
Private. Collaborators only.
Something along the lines of R. Buckminster Fuller’s “When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty but when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong.” came to mind reading your comment, Ms. Antonelli. Though I imagine you mean a more explicit effort must be made to reach an aesthetic quality in order to be considered design (whereas some might be happy to say “this is design with good aesthetic, and that is design with bad aesthetic”).
So the question is: is a notion of aesthetics (“formal elegance”) contained within a definition of design, or not? And further: is it time to formulate a new definition of design? I believe this is part of what is happening currently, as mentioned above.
^
1
^
Robin Bergman 1/3/2017
Permalink|Reply
Private. Collaborators only.
While studying design, I myself had a hard time understanding the ambiguity of the word “design”. The presentation on “Design Definition” by Prof. Hardt (http://www.michael-hardt.com/PDF/lectures/design-definition.pdf) gave me insight in how to deal with this ambiguity. If the ambiguity of the word “design” is accepted and understood from various perspectives I disagree the necessity to formulate a ‘new’ definition of design. The understanding and acceptation of this ambiguity helped me to expand my horizon. Furthermore I hope this presentation can help to understand the various perspectives on word design and clarify this discussion.
^
2
^
Francesco Bertelli 2/26/2016
Permalink|Reply
Private. Collaborators only.
Best comment.