sorry Michael, did not see your post before writing.
changing the name is still an option of course, i
did not know you might still write about it. and
this is what i was wondering: is 'design' capable
of 'opening up' the list to views outside of the
confinements of art-discourse or, architectural-
limitations to these things. the one thing about
the design list (not sure of the origin, i think
Howard and the original co-owner named the list,
and Howard refers to it as: design list (no 'the'))-
'design' is closer to what seems to be the general
drive of the list, in terms of where the tensions
arise with views of what 'architecture' is, or for
that matter, political aspects of these same realms.
design is expansive, architecture is an expert system
which appears to have 'open' discussions only outside
of its traditional structures of authority and control.
design seems to be what is the force in merging of the
museum and walmart/marketplaces/retailing/'shopping',
the crossover, co-branding, cross-marketing of the
designed style, ultimately sold as 'lifestyle' today:
ultra-pragmatic typology for finding places to fit-in.
this is why 'design' seems much more potent on a wide-
range and along varying scales, as a catch-all context,
whereas architecture and art can be made very exclusive.
arguing something is not design/designed is not too easy.
it also adds an interesting dimension to 'design topics'
such as 'designed creation' (creationism) and 'designed
evolution' (darwinism) potentially, where the full social
or other realms can be added as substance, not excluded
and seen just in terms of facades and marketed aesthetics.
i am wondering about the design of academic departments,
imagining the pseudo 'political-science' supplemented by
'political architecture, political art, political math,
political meteorology' (what weathermen and women practice
on television every night) among other newly reconfigured
departments of Machiavellian intellectual engineering...
On Monday, March 28, 2005, at 08:23 PM, Michael Kaplan wrote:
changing the name is still an option of course, i
did not know you might still write about it. and
this is what i was wondering: is 'design' capable
of 'opening up' the list to views outside of the
confinements of art-discourse or, architectural-
limitations to these things. the one thing about
the design list (not sure of the origin, i think
Howard and the original co-owner named the list,
and Howard refers to it as: design list (no 'the'))-
'design' is closer to what seems to be the general
drive of the list, in terms of where the tensions
arise with views of what 'architecture' is, or for
that matter, political aspects of these same realms.
design is expansive, architecture is an expert system
which appears to have 'open' discussions only outside
of its traditional structures of authority and control.
design seems to be what is the force in merging of the
museum and walmart/marketplaces/retailing/'shopping',
the crossover, co-branding, cross-marketing of the
designed style, ultimately sold as 'lifestyle' today:
ultra-pragmatic typology for finding places to fit-in.
this is why 'design' seems much more potent on a wide-
range and along varying scales, as a catch-all context,
whereas architecture and art can be made very exclusive.
arguing something is not design/designed is not too easy.
it also adds an interesting dimension to 'design topics'
such as 'designed creation' (creationism) and 'designed
evolution' (darwinism) potentially, where the full social
or other realms can be added as substance, not excluded
and seen just in terms of facades and marketed aesthetics.
i am wondering about the design of academic departments,
imagining the pseudo 'political-science' supplemented by
'political architecture, political art, political math,
political meteorology' (what weathermen and women practice
on television every night) among other newly reconfigured
departments of Machiavellian intellectual engineering...
On Monday, March 28, 2005, at 08:23 PM, Michael Kaplan wrote:
seeing it in front of me, it looks exclusive - excluding graphic design,
interior design, industrial design, urban design etc. i am reminded of
the great eames film "What is Design?" (Qu'est-ce que c'est Design?)
where the question itself is answered - rhetorically, i suppose - by a
visual image rather than words. so maybe it should just be 'open
discussion of design and culture'. maybe culture is redundant; don't
art, architecture, and design all *imply* culture?