see below On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Scott Berkun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2) "Design" is not just part of a title, it is philosophically a >> different way of thinking about problem analysis and solving. Having >> your title reframed to suit corporate culture may be short term effective, > >> but long term you may not be sought after for that difference. >> Historically, (yes, I'm about to sound paranoid) this has been the >> chief way to assimilate and acculturate groups of people into the larger > cultural mindset. > > I think this is bogus. If you kick ass at your job and get great products > out the door you will always be of great interest to the 85% (my made up > number) of the world that fails at one or both of those goals. It wont > matter what you call yourself if you are successful: people will be > interested regardless. For someone with the D word in their job title to > spout on about design is predictable. For a VP of engineering or Marketing > to say "Our secret is design and they deserve all the power we can give > them" is something way more powerful.
I think there is more to design than business. If business is ALL you are interested in, then I think you really aren't a designer, but rather a business person using "creative thinking". Design is related to Art. Great design is more than just profit, but about cultural change, sociological change, and even political change. Why do you think there are so many designers interested in sustainability? It's b/c of the empathetic condition we embody and because of our need as designers towards positive change. The "make sustainability profitable" piece is just about practicalities. BTW, there is nothing wrong with just being a business person, but just be honest with yourself about it, is all. > >> I'm a very politically minded individual and I believe that >> design is more than a tool for problem solving to be honest, >> but actually is a core professionalization for non-linear thinking. >> In a world where linear analytical thought is taught to our young >> ones at younger and younger ages, destroying their creativity, >> I for one want to keep every last bit of it in all symbols. > > I bet we agree on the goal, but as someone who has taught creative thinking, > you're framework here is way more complicated than it needs to be. Why not > simply be an advocate for creative thinking? Or teaching problem solving > skills? If that's at the core of how you want to change the world, you'd > have more allies and more people who understand what you want to achieve if > you just say you are an advocate for teaching creative thinking & problem > solving skills. > > There's a bunch of groups that run national programs with this goal, and > never use the word design: > http://www.scottberkun.com/blog/2008/teaching-kids-creative-thinking/ "Design thinking" or "Creative thinking" is NOT all that makes up design. It isn't only about solutions. Design needs to strive for "beauty", for "message" for "narrative". Again, don't reduce design so that it is easy to sell. This is like right-wing politics that want to reduce complex issues into sound-bites so that they can be manipulated more easily. I don't think you are trying to be malevolent, but I caution reducing "design" to "creativity" or "creative thinking". -- dave -- David Malouf http://synapticburn.com/ http://ixda.org/ http://motorola.com/ -- David Malouf http://synapticburn.com/ http://ixda.org/ http://motorola.com/ ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
