Submitted by Pei-Wei, Leah, Arjana, & Tugba
In human history, different artifacts can be found to trace the human inhabitants. Nelson & Stolterman argued that through the evidence of design, archeologists are able to distinguish human from animals and this ability to design is uniquely human. This makes the assumptions that animals are unable to design items for their own usage?
If the definition of design means the ability to imagine and make which-does-not-exist appear in concrete form as a new and purposeful addition (Nelson & Stolterman, 2014, p.12), animals also possess the ability to design. Take birds for example; nests are designed in different forms as homes for safety, rest, and raising their young. In addition, the authors also claim that the ability of design determines our humanness (Nelson & Stolterman, 2014, p.11). In our opinion, what makes humans unique from animals is the evolution of design ability. The items designed by animals are typically for survival purposes, however humans design for a variety of purposes beyond survival. In addition to purposes in designing, there are also various motivations for designing.
The purposes of human design ranges from basic survival needs to self-fulfillment. Humans use design as ways of reifying imagination and representing their existence in the world. With different levels of purposes and motivation, identity is formed through the practice of design. By imaging a new purpose to the real world, designers are able to project their identities to their creations. Even though their purposes differ greatly, the similarity is that their identities are established through a picture of the world into which the self can be projected (Wenger, 2000, p. 195). The graphs, tools and artifacts designed are not only given meaning but also in relationship to their users. However the meaning given by designers may differ than meaning produced by users. People have the free will to negotiate and utilize objects in ways that are valuable to them.
Design is a capacity not only for solving problems but also for making a change. McLuhan & Fiore argues that survival is not possible if one approaches his environment with a fixed, unchangeable point of view (2001, p.10). Therefore, change is necessary and vital to our daily lives. By embracing the culture of design, we are able to integrate thinking and doing that make change possible and feasible. Otherwise, either thinking without doing or doing without thinking can’t prepare today’s students for tomorrow’s citizens. The traditional way of learning by only providing information to students won’t be able to meet the need of the continuously changing job market. The new environment requires knowledge, critical thinking and participation. Only by adopting to the design culture, will we have the opportunity to create change.
If design is the only way to bring change, learning is a unique element to design. Likewise, design has its own approach to learning and inquiry. In order to produce effective design, knowledge, skills, competence, and participation of designers can’t be neglected. The best way to possess these abilities is through learning. As a result, design and learning are indispensable and complementary. It is important to realize that design is a process of learning and learning is the necessary condition of design.
Zach Lonsinger says
“By imaging a new purpose to the real world, designers are able to project their identities to their creations.” I really like this thought from your post. For me, it circles back to our discussion about identity and community and ties everything together. This idea that we are all designers by human nature, and by designing we are adding our identity to the world. It’s like we are leaving pieces of who we are along the way, which affect other people in the formation of their identity from the result of our designs. It’s interesting to think about what someone designed that affected our identity because of the designer’s identity’s influence on the design. It kind of reminds me of that question about how many people’s lives have we affected from appearing in the background of someone else’s photograph, and then them realizing we are in the picture months or even years later…
Brandon says
Archaeologists can infer things about civilizations based on the artifacts they find. The range of affordances an artifact has makes these inferences more difficult. For example, a knife can be used for a wide range of things, so it doesn’t tell us too much about the people that used it. On the other hand, a mace (so I understand) isn’t good for much other than busting heads. If you find a mace, there’s a good chance those people were familiar with violence.
Make it contemporary. What artifacts do we have that are very specific in their potential uses, and what do those say about us?
Katie Bateman says
Brandon, I think you make a good point, but I wonder if we can only discover the nature of the artifact whence removed from it. What will the abundance of degrading plastic say to future generations about ours? Will they be disgusted by the pollution, or intrigued with the usage of plastic soda bottles and what they say about the culture? How is that different than finding a clay pot used to hold liquid? It’s the identity and meaning placed on it by the people using it, and then differently by the people finding it. I’m pretty sure the chamber pots were not given much thought by those using them, it is in a new situated context that meaning is negotiated and fascination is found.
Adam says
“In our opinion, what makes humans unique from animals is the evolution of design ability.”
One of the examples that comes to mind are gorillas in the rain. Gorillas have been observed disliking being caught in the rain so much that they act erratically seeking cover. In some cases they can find shelter but the gorillas won’t alter their environment to increase shelter; they don’t design a way to shelter themselves.
Isaac Jason Bretz says
A community of design is necessary for our survival because of global climate change. Technology is not going to save our current social structures from this scale of disaster. A community of design must first and foremost address philosophical transformation
Priscilla Taylor says
I like the way you tie together learning and design in a reciprocal nature; they shape and impact each other. The meaning derived in design can differ from the meaning of the design in use. Nelson and Stolterman discuss that a designer cannot predict the outcome of their design. When this is applied to higher education, the same concept applies. When a professor is designing a face-to-face, blended, or online course, there is no guarantee of what the end result will be, the meaning that the user derives from the design. This is a key element that teachers should keep in mind in their role as designers.
Audrey Romano says
I, too, really like how you tied identity (imagination) and design together here. Design is such a romantic concept when viewed through the lens of positive potential. I particularly loved this quote: “we are pulled into design because it allows us to initiate intentional action out of strength, hope, passion, desire, and love. It is a form of action that generates more energy than it consumes. It is innovative inquiry that creates more resources—of greater variety and potential—than are used” (Nelson & Stolterman, p 20). Design originates from the interaction of ourselves and the world around us. But “with great power comes great responsibility”. So while we want to continue to cultivate a design culture, destructive things can also be the result. To Isaac’s comment, design (potentially poor design) is what led to the destruction and consumption of this planet’s environment. But it will be one of the only ways to save us from it. And now I need to watch Interstellar again!
Dean says
What I love about design or creating something, in general, is that one can never truly know how the created thing will be regarded by others. (Shoutout to Priscilla) There is this dance between a created thing and the people who perceive and interact with the creation. A person will bring all of him or her self to that encounter that could influence how that object is regarded. It makes me think of how music sometimes doesn’t “hit” us the first time around. Sometimes we have to listen to a song over and over again so it can “grow on us.” And this isn’t to say if we had a bad or good experience before our first interaction with the thing.
There are so many dependencies in life inside each of us, between each of us, and between us and the physical or virtual objects that we interact with in the world, that to generalize and/or analyze anything (without scientific process, methods, and comprehension) could really be a waste of time…
Koun says
I like the way Design deconstruct traditional thinking and provide open possibility of thinking and using different ways. As you indicated, learning and design is not detachable. Whether you use/interact with the artifacts as they were designed to do, or appropriate the existing artifacts in different/new ways, or you create new artifacts based on the existing one, learning is rooted in them.
Michael Sean Banales says
“Design is a capacity not only for solving problems but also for making a change. McLuhan & Fiore argues that survival is not possible if one approaches his environment with a fixed, unchangeable point of view”.
I think this struck me the most. It’s interesting to think of design as not only a part of our lives, but a central piece behind why we are able to exist in the capacity that we do. I like that you specifically point out that the difference between humans and animals as well is the “evolution of design ability.” I don’t think we can argue that design is a uniquely human feature (or so I assume/think), but it’s the adaptation and continued development of design that is what sets us apart. Redesigning design, as I shall from now on call it.