Content deleted Content added
Line 129:
[http://technology.open.ac.uk/design/cross.html/ Nigel Cross] has been prolific at articulating the issues of design methods and design research. The discussion of the ongoing debate of what is design research and design science was, and continues to be articulated by Cross. His thesis is that design is not a science, but is an area that is searching for "intellectual independence." He views the original design methods discussions of the 1960's as a way to integrate objective and rational methods in practicing design. [[Scientific method]] was borrowed as one framework, and the term "design science' was coined in 1966 at the Second Conference on the Design Method focusing on a systematic approach to practicing design. Cross defined the "science of design" as a way to create a body of work to improve the understanding of design methods – and more importantly that design methods does not need to be a binary choice between science and art.
===The Role of Design Practitioners===
Conversations about design methods and a more systematic approach to design was not isolated to Europe. America was also a magnet for practicing design professionals to codify their successes in design practice and backing into larger theories about the dynamics of design methods.
American designers were much more pragmatic at articulating design methods and creating an underlying language about the practice of industrial and graphic design. They were tied to the economic systems that supported design practice and therefore focused on the way design could be managed as an extension of business, rather than the European approach to design methods which was based on transforming engineering by design.
Industrial design was the first area that made inroads into systematizing knowledge through practice. [http://www.raymondloewy.com/ Raymond Lowey] was instrumental at elevating the visibility of industrial design through a cult of personality (he was on the cover of Time Magazine three times). [http://ndm.si.edu/EXHIBITIONS/hd/exhibition.html/ Henry Dreyfuss] had a profound impact on the practice of industrial design by developing a systematic process used to shape environments, transportation, products, and packaging. His focus on the needs of the average consumer was most celebrated in his book [http://www.dmi.org/dmi/html/publications/books/reviews/designingforpeople.htm/ Designing for People], which was an extensive exploration of ergonomics.
[[Paul Rand]], one of the most influential practitioners of graphic design from the 1940s to the late 1990's at first rejected philosophizing about design, but ended up writing some of the best books that used his work and that of others to animate the underlying dynamics of design, moving into an articulation of how design should be practiced. [[Charles Eames]], and his lifelong collaborator Ray Eames, was one of the most prolific American designers in the 1940's to 1970's and articulated issues about integrating design into business and that design was just as much about constraints as possibilities.
[http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm?contentalias=JayDoblin/ Jay Doblin] one of America's foremost industrial designers, who worked for Raymond Lowey, and co-founded Unimark International, the world’s largest design firm of the 1960's with offices in seven countries. In 1972, Doblin formed Jay Doblin & Associates, in Chicago, a firm which has managed innovative programs for Xerox Corporation, General Electric. Doblin was just as prolific at developing a language to describe design. One of his best articles was "A Short, Grandiose Theory of Design", published in the 1987 Society of Typographic Arts Design Journal. In seven pages, Doblin presents a straightforward and persuasive argument for design as a systematic process. In this article he described the emerging landscape of systematic design:
* For large complex projects, it 'would be irresponsible to attempt them without analytical methods.' and rallied against an "adolescent reliance on overly intuitive practices."
* He seperated "direct design" in which a craftsperson works on the artifact to "indirect design" in which a design first creates a representation of the artifact, separating design from production in more complex situations.
Doblin and others were responding the the increased specialization of design and the complexity of managing large design programs for corporations. It was a natural process to begin to discuss how design should move upstream to be involved with the specifications of problems, not just in the traditional mode of production which design had been practiced.
==Resources==
| |||