[Sigia-l] [spam] Retraction re: "IA" value postingImadeearlier

[Thomas Vander Wal]

From: "Listera" <listera at rcn.com>
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 1:09 AM

> No, you're buying (hopefully temporarily) into the semantic hairsplitting
> over the word 'design'. It's a wonderfully ambiguous, huggable,
> all-inclusive, cross-discipline, non-fattening word. Years ago, I was
> shooting a video of a very famous surgeon who also happened to be a
> published poet (and later an author). Before going into the OR, I visited
> his room. He had a pad and was seemingly doodling some stuff. I asked him
> what he was doing. He said he was 'designing' the surgery. I still
remember
> that. Design is what makes us homo sapiens.

I have a personal problem with the term design.  First off, is reason can be
broadly interpreted.  I personally use design as one step a way from art,
where as art does not necessarily have rules or boundaries art does not have
a "functional" purpose.  Design does have some structure and creates
structure and definitely has an intended "functional" purpose.  If an
artists rendition of a tea cup does not hold liquid who cares, but if a
designers tea cup does not hold liquid it is largely a failure.  The design
blends form and function (form versus function - FvF) to varying degrees.
To a great degree in my mind (and this is where my problem resides) those
that design want to be more on the form side of the FvF balance.  Would I
hear a surgeon say he or she were designing my surgery I would do my best to
get as far away as possible.