Tag Richard Buchanan

Entries 9 Total

Invisibility of Systems

May 12, ’09 6:28 PM

I believe that one of the most significant developments in systems thinking is the recognition that human beings can never see or experience a system, yet we know that our lives are so strongly influenced by systems and environments of our own making and by those that nature provides … We can never see or experience this totality. We can only experience our personal pathway through a system.
Richard Buchanan, Design Research and the New Learning, p. 12

Albert Speer’s work, Inside the Third Reich, is a memoir of his life as an integral participant of the Nazi system. Speer was remorseful following WWII and served 20 years in prison. He had much time to think about the pathway he chose as a young man and found himself writing the memoir to discover why he did the things he did.

The film, Finding Forrester, ends with Sean Connery’s character’s (William Forrester) realization of the need for true friendship and meaning in life. Forrester, a one time Pulitzer prize winner who only published one book before leading a reclusive life, finds inspiration through an unexpected friendship and the film ends with a quick glimpse of a second book drafted on the deceased writer’s table.

I’m fascinated by the phenomenon of not being able to experience a system but being able to look back later and having one’s experience make sense – that in some stories, “things happen for a reason.” This is a common theme in spiritual realities. For example, an autobiography I just finished is titled, God In the Shadows, where the author shares about his struggles as a young person and how he came to know God on a hospital bed following an unsuccessful suicide attempt. Since then, Ravi Zacharias has led a rich life, impacting many people all over the world. At rocky moments in his life, he did not understand the “big picture,” but in retrospect, he claims to have had providential guidance all along – hence, God in the shadows. The Book of Esther in the Scriptures is also well know for this form of detached guidance where the God of the Hebrews is never mentioned (as in other Books) but is quietly overseeing His people.

One of my favorite poems is "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne. When the speaker tries to console the love he is leaving behind, he assures her that their love is not the superficial love that many in the world experience – instead, he says to look to the planets as a metaphors of their love. The “movement of the spheres” is not something you can see or even experience, but it is something more powerful than the things we can see or experience through our senses. He ends with the metaphor of the compass (drafting tool) where one leg of the compass (likens to her constant love) must stay while the other leg moves. But what is unseen on the final paper is a manifestation of an activity – the process of separating the tool’s legs so that the legs lean on each other which is needed to create the ultimate circle (symbol of perfection and eternity).

What is meant by not being able to experience a system? Perhaps we cannot experience a system, but maybe one can still understand a part of the system once time has passed? What can designers do in an invisible system detached from the senses, especially if one of our core qualities is having a grasp of the senses (polysensorial aesthetics)? How do you preserve the dignity of an individual (and sanctity of “the soul”) when our territory and discussions expands to systems?

Comments (0)

Defending Your Enemy

Oct 1, ’08 2:20 PM

Sottsass – Rams

Sottsass - Rams

Sottsass - Rams

Ettore Sottsass (operational method, reflexive principle): Italian designer who was part of the Memphis Design Movement in the early 80′s. All about the perspective of the designer and people in their circumstances. In this view, products won’t sell w/o an emotional component. He was concerned with tribalism and factions in an audience.

Dieter Rams (logistic method, reflexive or simple principle): German industrial designer who worked for Braun (a lot of Apple’s products are in this vein). In this view, products are all about performance; form and function have to communicate clearly. Good design needs no manuals. His principle could be reflexive b/c he believed that self-expression/awareness should come from a product’s user. His principle could be simple because he believes that emotions satisfice just the basic human needs. Basically, expression comes from users, therefore, a designer’s own perspective damages design. Rams’ view is the “calm in state of pain” view that Buddhists have – it is a cool, neutral emotion, but an emotion, nonetheless.

Now, if the Design Police accuse Sottsass of excessive emotion (frenzy & dionysian) and if Sottsass gets Rams to be his lawyer, how would Rams plead his case?*

Rams would say that it is wrong to kill emotions and to force emotions or the lack of emotions onto an audience. People should be free to choose emotional/expressive products and Sottsass is just one part of that spectrum.

Now, if the Design Police charge Rams with boredom and Rams gets Sottsass as a lawyer, on what grounds can Sottsass defend Rams?

Sottsass could say that Rams is just one, other tribal leader. Sottsass & Co. (i.e. Branzi) regret the loss of Modernism and aren’t happy with factions. Rams is a modern stoic, Sottsass would say. And although Rams might not recognize emotions, Sottsass would say that it’s still there and that Rams understands emotions in his own way.

*challenge proposed by Dick during the first class of Emotion and Reason in Design

Democrats – Republicans

Democrats - Republicans

Democrats - Republicans

Now, if the Political Police charge the GOP with “x” and the Republicans get the Democrats as a lawyer, on what grounds can the Democrats defend the Republicans? And vice versa?

Comments (0)

So, If a Bear Were to Enter the Room

Sep 19, ’08 12:13 PM

“Emotion is the state or capability of having a feeling aroused to the point of awareness.”
Richard Buchanan

Much of design today is about the rational and logical aspect of the artificial world – not so much discussion on the emotional aspect (more blogging on this topic to come).

I’ve noticed a lot of concept maps start off with a phase of “awareness.” Whether it’s Alcoholic’s Anonymous or some other project that tries to get people to exercise more, much of the products and services offered in the world want people/users to become aware of their situation or context.

So how do you do that? Are emotions triggered by some kind of stimulus? That is certainly one way to look at how emotions work in our lives. Even when people talk about emotions starting in the brain, they talk of stimuli. Much of psychology focuses on this aspect of emotion.

I think it was William James who used the example of a bear. If you see a bear, do you run from the bear because you’re afraid of the bear or are you actually afraid of the bear b/c you are running from the bear? James thought that you can actually feel better if you start to smile, not the other way around.

So, then, these things we call feelings, is it always reactionary to some kind of stimulus? Perhaps the stimulus happens internally – the way Plato talks about self-motion in Phaedrus. Is this what awareness is – self-motion towards an object? And of course Spinoza has something to say about what that object might be (I’m getting all this from Dick’s Emotion and Reason in Design class, btw).

I’m just thinking out loud since I can now see applications of my education in the professional work place. There’s talk about emotions, but many do not understand the range of interpretations. For example, someone come in today to give a presentation on how to measure emotion with metrics, a very entitative view of emotions. Talked about stimuli and the range of emotions (happy, sad, pleasurable, not pleasurable, etc). However, this is just one way of looking at emotions. Emotions CAN be viewed as a science where you try to break down an experience and try to isolate “feelings.” However, there’s more than meets the eye (more on this later).

And would you believe that most decisions are made primarily by emotions (80%) rather than the rational (only 20%)?

Comments (3)