Christopher Alexander really interesting

The small amount of Christopher Alexander’s work which I have look at has given my a huge amount of respect for him. He does not hide behind a pretentious vocabulary trying to hide the fact that he has nothing useful to say. Instead he is clear, he is precise, and he only says and focuses on things that help him create better designs. He also understands what it means to truly understand something. “If you really understand what a fine piece of architecture is – really, thoroughly understand it – you will be able to specify a step by step process which will always lead to the creation of such a thing. Anything short of that means you don’t really know what is going on.” To me this is a challenge because there are very very few things that I can say I fully, truly understand. Just to stop some of the inevitable reactions against this statement partial understanding is still useful, more than half of our world is run on partial understanding and fully understanding something is not always, if seldom, necessary. The issues come when people claim that they do fully understand something when they don’t.

essay

I’m looking now into more articles on methods of design in particular methods which in some way react to science either borrowing ideas and method or rationally rejecting them.

H. A. Simon. The Sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1969.

C. Alexander, “The State of the art in design methods”. DMG Newsletter 5:3. 1971

J. C.Jones. "How My thoughts About Design Have Changed During the Years". Design Methods and Theories. 11:1. 1977

Alexander, Christopher.Notes on the synthesis of form.Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1964.

different mediums

moving back to 3d

searching for beauty

abstracting again

changing to a 3d form

Different types of representation of initial sketches

Initial sketches plotting arm and leg movements and connection points

Clip for collaboration

I took screen shots of several of the sequences in this clip which I then began to abstract through sketches

Start of abstraction process

I started looking at ways in which I could portray collaboration. My initial idea was create a sculpture with abstract forms which would portray a type of interaction. How ever after looking more at the abstracting the idea and going through the set process I chose to map on paper the movements of people collaborating. At first I started to video people working together in the class room but this was objected to so I decided to map the movement of gymnasts.

Key word

When I first thought of my essay the word that came to mind was conflict however in my essay I wanted the out come to be positive and focus on collaboration between disciplines. I chose collaboration because I wanted to portray in my visual presentation the positive side and ultimate goal of the essay.

Lecture 11

sci-fi and future technologies

Lecture 10

politics of the artifical

I was sick for this lecture

Reading

Political ergonomics
Langdon Winner

Reading

Towards user design? On the shift from object to user as the subject of design
Johan Redström
This paper talk about how there seems to be a shift in design from designing objects to designing the user experience and the problem that this raises such as knowing who the user actually is. To an extent I agree with the author that trying to govern the way in which a user will experience a design, pigeonholes the user and is trying to predict the unpredictable.
I think that designs can have an intended way for the product to be experienced but that the product it’s self should be strong enough in it’s form and function that the user can experience it in their own chosen manor there for not limiting the user or causing the problems of having to try and predict how the user will respond.

lecture 9

Philosophy of the artificial
Luke started off stating major ‘eras’ of philosophy

• Ancient philosophy (Greek) 6BC
• Catholic philosophy 1100-1400AD
• Modern philosophy – now

He then addressed what is philosophy.
It is in the gap between religion and science.
It has subtopics of

• Epistemology – the theory of knowledge – what is truth/knowledge?
• Ontology – metaphysics – our existence/what is it to be
• Ethics – how do you live your life well
• Aesthetics – beauty, art sensory perception
• Mind – what is thinking/consciousness
• Natural – sciences, physics, biology, etc

He then asks the question “Why is it useful for us to know about philosophy? And how do our own personal world views, background and training effect our designs, consciously or unconsciously?”
Luke went on to talk about the epistemology of design. What is design knowledge and how is it different from other disciplines? What is valid or true knowledge in design?
Design as an academic discipline has only been around since the l970s so it is quite a new field. However, designing itself has been around since the “beginning of time”. Because of this it takes its influences and ways of thinking from all sorts of different sources. Luke then looked at “what is design knowledge based on a worldview from Descartes” and “What is the enlightenment?”
During the period of the Enlightenment there became a separation between knowledge based on religion and what the Church was telling people and knowledge based on discovery by scientists.
The definition of real knowledge became what could be seen and measured.
He then went on to say that light = truth and what was illuminated and understood through seeing was true.
The idea that if you can see it, it is true; if you cannot see it, it is not true.
Descartes said, “I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am”
One of the questions Luke talked about was “’how can we tell if what we see is the same as what others see?”
Descartes represented the relationship between the mind and the world as a pinhole camera and the image which is inside the camera is representative of what you know in your mind and that the things that are most truthful are the things which are clear and distinct in the picture.
He then went on to talk more about looking at knowledge through the metaphor of “seeing” – that you should observe the world and not be in the world.
He also talked about dualism and a Cartesian perspective in which a person is only an observer and detached from the world. But this isn’t good enough for design because a designer needs to interact and be within the world.
He then talked about Heidegger and phenomenology and how we need to not only observe the world but to interact and be within it. [Phenomenology dictionary definition - the science of phenomena as distinct from that of the nature of being.
• an approach that concentrates on the study of consciousness and the objects of direct experience.]

Luke wrapped up to say that when we consider what is valid or rigorous we need a non-seeing epistemology. Good design comes when the design is both relevant and deals with an element of risk.

Reading

Prometheus of the everyday: The Ecology of The Artificial and the Designers Responsibility.
Ezio Manzini
This paper talks about the environmental problems that we are facing today, some of the reasons why they are a problem and how solutions could possibly have a good effect on design and production. One of Manzini’s main points is that because culture and the world has been changing so much because of the rapid development of new technology, the cultural systems of the past can no longer be applied in the same way. Because of this, products are being created which have no cultural or sentimental values, which generates a new “throw-away” culture.
He also talks about the limits that we have now discovered in this advance technological age. In particular, the limits of the environment and the limits of “our capacity to deal with the increasing mass of information”. Because of these limits, as designers, we have to consider how to design for the whole product life cycle, including production and disposal. We also have to design the brand and information in a recognizable and long lasting way, so that a product brand will stand out amongst the “noise” of excessive information.
He also talks about the relationship between the human race and the environment and how this needs to be considered and changed.

Lecture 8

Ecology of the artificial

Luke talked about sustainability and design.

Before we can work out how to protect nature we have to look at what nature actually is. Luke then narrated a slid show of stunning picture depicting different parts of nature. He then showed a fictitious video about little people living in the Kalahari Desert being compared to the western world. The point was do we change to fit the environment or do we change the environment to fit us.

He then talked about how we live in a limited environment in which everything is conserved. –life is balanced but as humans we effect the balance. For example mining which causes destruction through chemicals, the cutting down of trees, the fossil fuels, acid rain, and bad effects on the wild life.

He then gave the example of Easter Island as a limited environment where they used up all their natural resources making statues when that ran out they turned to cannibalism and effectively destroyed themselves. Is that what we’re doing today but on a larger scale?

Luke then compare the person cutting down the last pine tree to us and excuses that person may have offered for doing so. –it’s my pine tree I can do what I want to it. – They’ll find some technology to fix it. – they’re just paranoid they are too afraid there’s probably some other trees else where they just don’t know about.

Luke then drew some other direct parallels- they had a smaller technology and a smaller population and smaller environment. We have big technology big population and big environment are we going to die out too?

Luke went on to talk about out eco foot prints how that is calculated and at what rate that we are consuming our resources. At the moment if everyone had the eco footprint of the USA then we would be using the resources of 3 earths.

Luke talked about the lithosphere and the biosphere and how we are putting things back in to the wrong places in our environment.

He discussed where our responsibility end is it at the concept or through to the manufacture or do we need to be responsible for the whole product life cycle or even past that point.

Up cycling where the product becomes more valuable as it is reused and recycling where the value is equal or often less than the original product.

He then talked about the transition from green design to the ecological model of the artificial. To stop the throw away culture and move to where products have long-term value. Changing from green design to ecologically sustainable design.

Green design- eg energy saving sleep function – rebound effect people leave the computer on all the time (and often people no longer think they have to be responsible)

Ecologically friendly design- time based products with long life – easy to upgrade and repair (products almost become a service because of their intent to be repaired and upgraded)

He also talked about de constructivist architecture and folded architecture.

Destroying the midset of them and us

The conflict and mutual distrust between industrial designers and the scientific world hinders the process of design. Too often in the design community, derogatory statements about engineers and scientists are heard. Whether said in jest or earnest, these statements break down the communication between the parties and fuel the general distrust. Statements along the lines of “They just build ugly, unrefined monstrosities” and “Forget the sciencey stuff; design from how you feel it should be – you don't want to be an engineer” immediately separate the designer from the science world, cutting out a whole area of inspiration and of valuable refinement resources. This conflict narrows the starting point of idea generation and creates a much narrower, unaccommodating field. Engineers [The science world also has] also have similar prejudices and their distrust or dislike of designers makes the process of communication even more difficult. This essay considers the causes and consequences of this conflict, and explores what would be required to create cooperation and understanding between the two fields.

many designers can happily work with engineers, but those who don't and then make it well known what they think of this scientific world create a situation where conflict is more likely in the future.

Before considering the conflict, it is important to have a clear understanding of the terms used. These definitions may also clear up some of the more basic misunderstandings in reference to the field of science. A scientist is someone trying to understand how some aspect of the world works and come up with precise and rigorous descriptions of its properties and behaviors. Designers will very seldom come in contact with a scientist; rather, they come in contact with people who could be called technologists. These are people who have a science background and are in jobs where they apply the principles of science to solve problems. A scientist knows why and how something works; a technologist takes what the scientist discovers and applies it in useful ways. For example a physicist (scientist) studies how the world works and creates definitions which describe it (the laws of physics). A civil engineer (technologist) will then apply these description/laws to design and test a structure which will stand up.

Conflict is caused by a number of factors on both sides. Designers have difficulty working with technologists because technologists either ignore or do not value the goals and methods of the designer such as aesthetics or intuitive reasoning. Technologists stereotype designers as people who “just make stuff pretty” and ignore function and how the world works. They may have a very negative stereotype of designers as being fussy, stubborn and impossible to work with. Technologist also become frustrated with “fuzzy designers”— designers who do not seriously consider the feasibility of their design in the real world, giving the impression that it doesn’t really matter. These preconceived ideas create a rift.

Technologists have difficulty working with designers because designers do the same thing to them. Designers either ignore or do not value goals and methods of the technologists, such as function, reliability, and analysis by scientific methods. Designers have the stereotype that technologists just make big, ugly, functional things. Designers are frustrated that in a response to a design, technologists will say “it can’t be done”, or ask “why would you want to do that, it’s stupid”. Because of this, designers don't share their ideas and the problems become much larger later down the track.

These stereotypes and prejudices are not the only things that hinder the relationship. Some designers appear to fear that if they if they accept and use science in the design process that the discipline of design will become formulaic or a science and that the beauty of variety and acceptance of diversity will be lost. It is possible that this fear arises from a misunderstanding of science as being purely an application of formulas void of human influence, combined with ????a rejection of design movements where the design become to wildly accepted and lesser designers start applying the basic ideas of the design in unthought-out ‘formulaic’ ways…..????

Another cause of conflict is that some designers judge the value of science through the designs that the technologists produce. For example a civil engineer may produce a very ugly bridge. A designer then sees it and comes to the conclusion that if that is what science produces then it must be of no use to design. However, it is not the science that generates the ugly bridge, rather it is the lack of aesthetic skills of the technologist.

There is also often a misunderstanding on the technologist’s part as to what a designer does. Technologists often consider designers to be just stylists. This results in the designer’s potential not being used or appreciated. More importantly it results in the designer being unwilling to work with technologists because they are prevented from designing the product itself and limited to trying to cover it up afterwards. “Designers have always been engaged to add a bit of style to an otherwise undistinguished product, and will continue to be so. But the best designers have always insisted on being in at the birth of a product concept and working closely with both the engineers and the many other specialists involved in its development.” […] (John Hendry and Angela Dumas 3)

This problem is not just the fault of the technologist: designers frequently do not communicate what they do in a way in which the technologist can understand “...designers in general, tend to eschew words and to communicate to the outside world only in visual images, which themselves reflect the completed design rather than the design as process. This is indeed one major reason why outsiders see their work in terms of “simple creativity”: by keeping the process hidden in a shroud of mystique, they positively encourage such a view.” […]

paragraph on problems caused by not recognizing constraints and requirements from the other side and designing separately, instead of early consultation and cooperative design.

There are two major factors underlying all these problems. The first is the realization that each group is trying to create something, but with different sets of values and goals. The solution of the technologist may not meet the values and goals of the designer, just as the solution of the designer may not meet the values and goals of the technologist. [ find an example] judged according to a design scale it would fail in the same way If Philippe Stark’ ‘JUICY SALIF’ citrus-fruit squeezer is likely to fail when judged by engineering standards because perform its doesn’t for its function smoothly.” is said to spill lemon juice all over the fingers” (1)

Secondly they are both creating things within their sets of values and more importantly out of their knowledge and view point. Both technologists and designers have ‘know how’ knowledge. A technologist know how something will react according to the scientific principles they have learned. A designer know how something will react from design principles they have learned. For example a mechanical engineer (technologist) will know how to work out the effect of a ball when it is dropped in terms of the path it will take, the velocity it will be traveling, the energy released on impact etc.; a designer will know how to work out the effect of the ball in terms of its proportion, balance, placement, function within the design, etc. This means that when the two groups interact, they will be talking in different terms. However, some of the know how is shared (though expressed differently and appearing contradictory) and some will be complementary, …… explain complementary, diagram .

[ when an engineer says “no, it can’t be done”….maybe not trying, or …[separate paragraph on hard problems where outside routine knowhow of both sides – needs insights from both to solve] There will also be there will be gaps in the know how knowledge where neither know how to do it but a solution is needed and there will be places where the knowledge overlaps and can appear to contradict.

These two factors become a problem when people on either side refuse to accept or try to understand the other side. Both designers and technologists become frustrated with the narrow-mindedness of the other party who will only accept what they know.

This distrust has the effect of not only making communication hard for designers but also making them seemingly distrust the entire science field. This cuts off all the possible benefits science has to offer. If the distrust is overcome, and the communication mended, then the door would be opened to better collaboration with technologists, new sources of inspiration, new methods of approaching design, new ways to measure or test designs, and new resources of knowledge. It would enable designers to push designs to new levels and mature the field of design.

Opportunities for inspiration can come from many different places in science. It can come through a new discovery, for example a materials scientist could create or discover a new type of material that has interesting properties that could be used in design. It could be through talking and interacting with technologists or scientists who could illuminate a different view point which sparks and idea or an idea could be developed together through the interaction. It could also come through borrowing an idea or method and applying them in a design situation. [For example, a project called grow by Samuel Cabot Cochran Samuel Cabot Cochran a solar and wind power generator “take its cues from how trees work in nature. After all, thousands of years of evolution can’t be wrong: if a more efficient design for gathering solar energy lay in developing huge slabs (see most existing solar panels installed on houses these days), trees ought to produce a single huge leaf! “

Science offers ways of testing or measuring the effectiveness a design. For example [cognitive science reference]

The field of science is also a huge resource for designers that can be accessed in many ways. When designers are faced with a difficulty in finding a solution to a design problem often research in to the area is necessary. This could require extensive experimentation on the designer’s part taking large amounts of time. Depending on the problem it is likely that this experimentation could be lessened or even eliminated by looking at research that has already been done. The science field is all about research so it offers a huge amount of information that can help solve the problems. For example [example of design issue being solved by science principle.]

Science can enable designers to go further with designs. [Examples metal tubing modernist design, metal- tool design, plastic - fluid forms, injection molding and industrial revolution - mass production, cad programs faster visualizations of designs. Physics tall buildings, smart materials- milk bottle packages.]

It helps to [ futher mature the field of design] likely to be cut

It is inevitable that designers will have to work with technologist in their career in most likely engineers. If the boundaries between the two field are broken down it will make the process very much easier.

time paragraph – it’s more efficient to solve problems early instead of late. and redoing.

A way to inform, justify, or correct intuition ( particularly in terms of psychology of perception) (intuition comes as a package, “this is what I think”, by analyzing, may get rid of invalid elements.)

How to reach a place of understanding and cooperation: last section of essay

Respect !!!

Understanding

Explanations of the others goals, values and approaches of each discipline and a realization that they are both good

Carnegie Mellon course teaching cooperation

Understanding of what the other party brings and their limits

recognizing and understanding the requirements and constraints from the other side.

A knowledge of each other’s concepts and terms

Communication

Quotes from the principles of design example of collaboration in PDA design

Conclusion