if you would, Howard, more appropriately inform the list
as to the proper definitions OK for use on the design-list...
On Wednesday, August 25, 2004, at 01:40 PM, Howard Ray Lawrence wrote:
The intention of Design List is more appropriately categorized by the following subjects:
please EXPLICITLY define the following:
Basic Design
what is Basic Design? what is not Basic Design?
Applied Design
what is Applied Design? what is not Applied Design?
Examples:
Visual Design
Product Design
Industrial Design
Architectural Design
Other Design
what is Visual Design? what is not Visual Design?
what is Product Design? what is not Product Design?
what is Industrial Design? what is not Industrial Design?
what is Architectural Design? what is not Architectural Design?
what is Other Design? what is not Other Design?
(cough)
Art
Architecture
(cough)
what is Art? what is not Art?
what is Architecture? what is not Architecture?
(cough)
On Wednesday, August 25, 2004, at 01:40 PM, Howard Ray Lawrence wrote:
These catagories occur from the center-to-the-outside when applied to a Venn diagram.
The center begins with Basic Design.
Design List is an appropriate forum for sharing and discussing explicit information concerning the above subjects.
here's the diagram, it would be more appropriate
(self-reliant of you) for you to draw it yourself:
--
The Design-L list for art and architecture, since 1992...
To subscribe, send mailto:design-l-subscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To signoff, send mailto:design-l-unsubscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Visit archives: http://lists.psu.edu/archives/design-l.html
These defined intentions have been consistent and unchanged since the initiation of Design List 12 years ago.
an intention is not a definition: you are required, by your
own requirements expected of others, to be explicit in
your declarations of truth: which does require defining
each of the above concepts so that, within the definitions
you choose, open communication can exist in your 'U'
or uni-verse (single-verse). The diagram seems largely
idiosyncratic to me, but you'll have to explain how things
really are so the uniformed are able to realize what they
are missing about the universality of your ideas defined.
However, some subscribers occassionally seek to use Design List for implicit political intentions.
This should be seen for what it is, and nothing more than what it is.
hmmm. what are you saying -- can you give an example Howard?
explicitly, lawyers would love this, you need to provide evidence
and make a case and surely the jury will rule in your favor-- it is
your internet court, anyways, you're at the controls-- and there is
absolutely nothing political in your actions and reactions, hmmm....
Making explicit political, or other, connections to the catagories of discussion on Design List should be a simple matter.
.H.
simple but not too simple, so you'll have to enlighten as to
where this line that you see, as list referee, actually is, so
that your politics are equally treated within the same rules.
freedom to spam political architectural tracts of ideologies
that are bringing the world to ruin? sure, why not, but why
not allow others to send ideas which counter other views?
make it simple- make it clear- and make it explicit- as this
is an important case-study in why either you're going to
lose this absurd position or you will not win by ignorance.
or, you may choose to censor, as you may be itching to do.
quite oedipal, nobody ever took you down a few notches?
--
The Design-L list for art and architecture, since 1992...
To subscribe, send mailto:design-l-subscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To signoff, send mailto:design-l-unsubscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Visit archives: http://lists.psu.edu/archives/design-l.html