I wonder about the fact, that designtheory and –research is an emerging field. And I sad to myself (method “systematic skepticism“): what if it is NOT because it is an important field of research, as I believe? If it is NOT that way, that designresearch attracts and demands young people, as I believe? If it is NOT a pull situation, as I believe?
So that’s my answer:
First of all we have to consider the vertical hierarchy of a typical discipline:
(Fig.1)
http://www.heikoundphilippa.de/privat/figure1.jpg
“Gestalt” stands for the wicked problems and questions that every discipline asks at the edge to philosophy. “What do we want to do with this?” “What should we be like?” “What is this good for?” It is mostly like “design” but in German to gestalten means not exactly the same as to design but to put up a gestalt. This is more to the depth than to the surface.
Imagine also that the protagonists are spread over the discipline as individuals!
Taken this we can draw design in between other disciplines. For our considerations a 2–dimensional model is good enough.
(Fig.2)
http://www.heikoundphilippa.de/privat/figure2.jpg
Now we just simply illustrate, what happened the last decades:
(Fig.3)
http://www.heikoundphilippa.de/privat/figure3.jpg
Remember that the protagonists are still spread over the discipline as individuals and therefore had to look where to stay and where to earn benefit.
When engineering and economy put even more pressure on design and especially at the university level on research opportunities and funds while in the meanwhile the questioning on gestalt degenerates in the economical triumphant disciplines this is what happened at the end:
(Fig.4)
http://www.heikoundphilippa.de/privat/figure4.jpg
Designresearch mixed with Gestalt and was squeezed out and spills over its rivals! Engineering and economy don’t answer the “gestalt”–questions any more. The applied research in design is crushed to nearly unrecognizable condition and most of the design discipline is pushed down to lower or basic application.
That’s how I feel my discipline: for designers with a strong aim on theory, research and gestaltung a big amount of resources for (applied) research in university and industry are covered by our rivals. But the questions on gestalt are ours. Shall we pull engineering’s and economy’s chestnuts out of the fire?
So maybe the spring for designresearch is partly driven by people who don’t fit to the lower application part of the discipline, don’t find a place in the (applied) research field and therefore heading into the designresearch / theory / gestalt flush with the tip on philosophy. This is a push situation and a supply human resources market.
That’s the squeeze theory.
Philip, very interesting
Philip, very interesting post - unfortunately i can't seem to open the links to the jpegs. could you check the links?
I was trying to decide what it is that I do the other day. I reluctantly decided it must be design theory having ruled everything else out. it was interesting for me to notice the difference between design theory and architectural theory. which seem quite different and attract very different people.
Ben
.jpg's new linked:
Thanks Ben,
unfortunatly I didn't cope with this system to upload and /or integrate the figures into my thought.
Now I uploaded the .jpg's on my private server and changed the links..
Isn't it possible to show the figures in the text??
Philip
Thank you…
…for putting design research on the top. That looks more pleasing to me than the other way around ;-)
Another idea …
…why more and more designers go into design theory:
because the total number of designers increases.
Are there any reliable statistics out there?
More or less »Gestalt«
Fig. 1:
Engineering is not predominant »vertical«, but if you think about as vertical, it will be.
Designers often worry about engineering. I do not know why, but if you read about design (written by gestalters and designers) you can often face closed-minded, self-reflecting thoughts, touching other disciplines and being »enlighted« how to make it better (if permitted).
Design is (in many disciplines) what you guess Gestalt is.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt
http://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gestalt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design
http://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/Design
Fig. 2:
Design is always placed between other Disciplines, most times not like a tombstone but more than synaptical clefts. Design is multidisciplinary interaction and communication.
Fig. 3:
Design is NOT sqeezed between economics and engineering, everything is squeezed by unleashed neocon/lib capitalism. Design and even local and regional economy is sqeezed by (vertical thoughts on) supply & demand.
Fig. 4:
Design-Research is everything but vertical and never »on top«. Design-research by definition is between. Even between chronologeconomical states and disciplines.
Fig. 5:
Pooh-no Fig. 5 take a trip.
http://www.petrahairdesign.com/
http://www.purecardesign.com/
http://www.michellesnaildesign.de
http://search.ebay.de/search/search.dll?from=R40&_trksid=m37&satitle=des...
we agree in splendid deviation
So Mr. M mmh, you didn’t like the squeeze theory?
I don’t know whether I like it by myself, but it is useful.
We really agree in splendid deviation or disagree in splendid accordance (just as you like)
First of all: a theory is to explain some phenomena’s, not to draw a picture of the real world.
Second: I wondered not about the disciplines as holistic whole, but about the behavior of individuals, that more and more choose design research as their sphere of activity.
(@ uvl: no, there are growing numbers absolute AND relatively, because the total numbers of design students are decreasing after a flush in the 90th)
So what I wrote was from the viewpoint of actors in the different disciplines.
Every discipline could be vertically described, if you see it as a field of profession (and a field of education).
Design may be (in many disciplines) what I wrote Gestaltung is, but Design is also just a profession. And en plus the sophisticated questions on gestalt are not very often put up at day-to-day business. Just go on monster.com and look for a job by searching for “design”.
So in further discussions we should put up clearly whether we mean design as a process, a mankind activity (Jonas wrote ones, that Design would be a characteristic of man action), or as I did in this theory as a profession. In this case, we must not ask what WE think that design is, but what THE OTHERS think about our profession. And in accordance what we get money for and what not. There comes the “squeeze” from.
Now you may understand, why design research is in my figures on top: just because you, as individual actor, need a very sophisticated attitude and knowledge to be able to do it!
“Pooh-no Fig. 5 take a trip.“ ??? Would you please explain?
Philip