Design Without Discipline
Design Without Discipline
复制标题
没有纪律的设计
作者：
C. Bremner;P. Rodgers
设计，再一次，发现自己处于危机之中，从许多不同的角度来看，包括专业，文化，技术和经济力量。然而，目前的危机并不是新的。大约20年前，亚当·理查森（Adam Richardson）的论文《设计师之死》（The Death of the Designer）强调了设计的身份危机，他在论文中提醒我们，设计的危机自20世纪60年代意大利激进设计运动以来就一直存在。从历史的角度论证了设计正处于危机之中，并在一个历史性的转型时期寻求一种新的平衡感和愿景。弗里德曼强调设计师有责任避免过度专业化，并将其工作视为更大文化背景的重要创造性方面。从学科的角度来看，这种设计正处于危机之中，最近也有人提出。当然，这种危机状态并不是设计所独有的大多数学科在其发展的某个阶段都处于危机之中。然而，最近的证据表明，设计的方法论再造确实表明，设计作为一个学科是“在危机中。”[3]围绕研究方法和设计的激烈辩论，阐明了一些领域的参与，似乎错过了学科学术界的普遍理解，即这种关于研究方法的辩论已经表明一门学科"处于危机之中"。[4]奈杰尔·克罗斯（Nigel Cross）也提出了类似的观点，他提醒我们，设计研究中每隔40年左右就会出现一些问题。[5]克罗斯描述了在20世纪20年代，研究的重点是开发科学的设计产品;然后在20世纪60年代，研究的重点转向寻找科学的设计过程。根据克罗斯的时间顺序计算，我们现在正经历着另一场关于设计中适当研究方法的发展和使用的危机，这绝非巧合。Richardson的文章在20年前宣称，设计“...... 1 Adam Richardson，"The Death of the Designer，" Design Issues 9，no. 2（1993）：34 - 43. [2] Dan Friedman，Radical Modernism（New Haven：Yale University Press，1994）. 3乔伊斯S. R. Yee和克雷格布雷姆纳，"方法论的砖-它告诉我们什么关于设计？" in Proceedings of the Doctoral Education in Design Conference（Hong Kong：Hong Kong Polytechnic University，2011），181 - 90. [4] John Law and John Urry，"Enacting the Social，" Economy and Society 33，no. 3（2004）：390 - 410. [5]奈杰尔·克罗斯，"设计师的认知方式：设计学科与设计科学"，《设计问题》，第17期，第3期（2001年），第49页。
Introduction Design, again, finds itself in the midst of a crisis from a number of different perspectives, including professional, cultural, technological, and economic forces. The present crisis, however, is not new. Almost 20 years ago, design’s crisis of identity was highlighted in Adam Richardson’s paper, “The Death of the Designer,” in which he reminded us that design’s crisis had been around since the days of the Italian Radical Design Movement of the 1960s.1 In addition, at about the same time, Dan Friedman, in his book Radical Modernism, argued from a historical perspective that design is in crisis and is searching for a new sense of balance and vision in a period of historic transformation.2 Throughout the book, Friedman emphasizes the responsibility of designers to avoid overspecialization and to see their work as an important creative aspect of a larger cultural context. That design is in crisis from a disciplinary perspective has been suggested more recently, as well. Of course, this state of crisis is not unique to design—most disciplines are in crisis at some point in their development. Nevertheless, recent evidence of design’s methodological reinvention indeed suggests that design as a discipline is “in crisis.”3 The robust debates around research methods and design, articulating a number of territorial engagements, appear to have missed the general understanding in disciplinary scholarship that such debates about research methods are already an indication of a discipline “in crisis.”4 A similar point is made by Nigel Cross when he reminds us of the concerns that arise every 40 years or so in design research.5 Cross describes how, in the 1920s, the search focused on developing scientific design products; then in the 1960s, the concern shifted to finding a scientific design process. According to Cross’s chronological calculations, then, that we are now experiencing another crisis about the development and use of appropriate research methods in design is no coincidence. Richardson’s essay proclaimed 20 years ago that design “...is in a crisis of identity, purpose, responsibility, and 1 Adam Richardson, “The Death of the Designer,” Design Issues 9, no. 2 (1993): 34–43. 2 Dan Friedman, Radical Modernism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994). 3 Joyce S. R. Yee and Craig Bremner, “Methodological Bricolage–What Does It Tell Us About Design?” in Proceedings of the Doctoral Education in Design Conference (Hong Kong: Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 2011), 181–90. 4 John Law and John Urry, “Enacting the Social,” Economy and Society 33, no. 3 (2004): 390–410. 5 Nigel Cross, “Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline Versus Design Science,” Design Issues 17, no. 3 (2001): 49.