I wanted to expand a bit on the question I asked in class on Thursday, as a way of developing this potential linkage a bit more strongly in my mind. The original question was something along the lines of:
Is the construction or reading of design precedent a form of aesthetic criticism?
By design precedent, I mean any artifact of the design process that might be shared with a Community of Practice (CoP) that surrounds production of similar artifacts. So this might include a book of logos for a logo or graphic designer, or an architectural plan book or project documentation for an architect. The point of reading such materials, from a designer’s perspective, is to serve as knowledge of other “ultimate particular” objects, which ultimately creates a collection of design knowledge (seen as different from scientific knowledge). This design knowledge links the designer to other work, which may serve as negative or positive examples which could be helpful to integrate into their own design process (issues of fixation included, as noted in Cross, 2001). You can see an extreme example of a design brief for the Pepsi “smile” logo here, although most forms of design precedent are not quite this involved.
So getting back to the thrust of this linkage, that the creation of design precedent, including commentary or selection of artifacts is, in itself, an act of criticism. While much of this created precedent is clearly situated in the authorial perspective (as in Riefenstahl’s commentary on the creation of Triumph of the Will), I think there is helpful overlap into other categories of criticism, including social context, predictions of reader/user behavior, and aspects of the artifact itself. So, in itself, I would propose, a detailed chronicle of design precedent touches on all four primary categories of criticism, either predictively or as documentary.
The other perspective on this precedent, however, is the reader’s perspective when actually digesting or “using” this design precedent. In this case, the authorial perspective is still foregrounded, but the addition of the reader’s design perspective and expertise, along with the lens of the current project they may be working on, adds a unique critical perspective to the original precedent and even the original artifact. This is where I think the greatest value might be seen, and within the lens of Cross and others, the reading of this precedent may, in fact, provoke many aspects of design cognition as precedent is read and applied to the foregrounded design problem.
1 comment
Comments feed for this article
January 30, 2012 at 10:53 pm
kevinwalorski
I would categorize the construction or reading of design precedent as a form of aesthetic criticism.
Your thoughts in the last paragraph are mostly how I feel in terms of how the addition of the reader’s perspective can advance the discussion to new domains. So by providing a precedent, it really seems more like a catalyst to discussion – provided people even see it. However I can also see it being used as a “first impression” tool to describe from the source an account of the why(s), perhaps with baked-in motivational intentions. The way people respond is dependent on the audience(s) it engages and the amount of effort dedicated to providing a richer understanding of the topic at hand.
The Riefenstahl example you raised seems to play this out nicely.
For some reason, I keep thinking about one of Shannon’s earlier posts on Ebert making the claim that video games are not art. I see some similarities with Ebert firing a claim, getting noticed and responded to by different audiences. So while Ebert had a particular understanding when the claim was made, the discussion that followed provided him the opportunity to either remain in place, or adopt a refined stance. With that said, I wonder if controversial claims wear out the people they end up engaging, while loads of opportunities for criticism to more-subtle matters are collecting dust?