Siguiendo con el pensamiento de diseño quería hacer un resumen de un artículo muy interesante de Edwin Gardner publicado en la última Volume (#25 being there getting there). En él explica sus dudas sobre si la metodología de un diseñador puede realmente ser aplicable a cualquier problema:
“Intuitevely I agree, and I have also advocated this position myself. I am pleased with the idea that design is about more than style is becoming established as common place, but I am also slightly worried about what a blind belief in the creative powers of the design way might result in.”
Dudas:
1. Universalidad y el peligro de perder de vista el contexto:
“Megalomania is a standard part of our repertoire” Reiner de Graaf (OMA/AMO) In the Guardian (May 9, 2010)
“ When designers start to believe that their knowledge is universal, the God complex is not far away. (A condition that architects seem more susceptible to than others.)…Thinking of one’s practice as universal is a dangerous notion, and perhaps especially in design, which so involved with the contextual. The designer’s thinking is to such a large extent informed by the culture, context and experiences that are instilled within themselves or that they have to actively seek out in order to deal with an unfamiliar context.”
2. Un caso similar en los 60’s y 70’s, una metodología de pensamiento que se extendió hacia otras disciplinas, incluida la del diseño. El metodo cientifico:
“Where now the creative processes of design are taking center stage, back then scientific methods of rigor and optimization were introduced, which would make design and many other fields into a kind of science, a science of the artificial:..The ultimate goal was to articulate a method that was uniºversal so that it was a matter of rigor and persistence to solve any problem…John Chris Jones who was one of the first to present a method of systematic design in 1963. In 1977 he wrote: I dislike the machine language, the behaviorism, the continual attempt to fix the whole life into a logical framework.”
“Although this time this belief isn’t based on a new dogma imported from science, now the designers are credited for whom they really are: creative par excellence…At least design is credited for something that is intrinsic to design and not imported to it.”
3. La relación del pensamiento de diseño con los negocios y el concepto innovación. La proliferación de cursos fast creatives para ejecutivos:
“Architecture has become a universal access key that can open countless oors in culture and society.” Ole Bouman, Volume #1 (2005)
“Desperate to innovate, companies are turning to design schools for nimble, creative thinkers.” Jessi Hempel and Aili McConnon, Bloomberg Bussinesweek (October 6, 2006)
“Innovation is the key word if you want to market your design company as a design consultancy to businesses. (Perhaps some good will come of it; it’s to early to tell.) Maybe design processes are much better at making novelty than current management methods are, with their focus on statistics, targets and turnover. My doubts are mainly concerned with the idea that design thinking can be boiled down to a method one can teach to an executive in a weekend’s masterclass.”
“If there is something universal about design, we should go deeper and not merely look at the method or behavior. We should go where thinking happens and not be fooled by the appearences or the manifestation of processes,…Behaving like a designer won’t make you one”
