Discussions:Design and Science
^
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.