• No results found

THE EMPATHIC TASK

5.1.1 The importance of design

In an unpredictable world, the “…everyday events result in unpredictable outcomes” and suggests that desired change can be brought about by human intention. The authors (Nelson & Stolterman, 2012:2), state:

Human intention, made visible and concrete through the instrumentality of design, enable us to create conditions, systems, and artefacts that facilitate the unfolding of human potential through designed evolution in contrast to an evolution based on chance and necessity – a highly unpredictable process.

According to Nelson and Stolterman (2012:4-5), although design is considered to be based in creativity, it is inclusive of aspects such as innovation, creative thinking, and activities that are positioned in the real world. The authors argue that design should be considered the third culture (science and art being the other two) with its own approach to learning and inquiry (Nelson & Stolterman, 2012:12). According to the authors, design is visible in every aspect of the real world, and as such has had great impact, but also done great harm.

Nelson and Stolterman (2012) argue that design is constituted of several aspects. Firstly, design-will, which provides the intention for humans to create new meanings, forms and realities, in order to better the world (Nelson & Stolterman, 2012:13). This provides a motivation for design. Secondly, design-wisdom, is a far more in-depth approach to problem solving, and is an integration of “…reason with observation, reflection, imagination, action, and production or making” (Nelson & Stolterman, 2012:18). In addition, design-wisdom encourages change, and it is this human need for change that allows design to approach problem solving through the integration of elements of the complex problem. The above, namely design-will and design- wisdom form a design-culture. Three specific aspects form part of the suggested design-

108 culture, namely, design as the particular; design as the systemic, and design as the whole (Nelson & Stolterman, 2012:21-23).

According to the authors, where art is based on intuition, and science on logic, design is considered to be the mid-point between art and science, thus design inquiry is the emergent compound of actioning the ideal (that which is desirable as an outcome) into the real (the expected outcome), therefore, the design-action is both the journey and the expected outcomes (Nelson & Stolterman, 2012:35-39). It is the design-action that instils change. Nelson and Stolterman (2012:38) suggest that change is: “…triggered by human intention that is at the heart [cause] of design.” Design-cause is thus the consequence of free will and innate desire for humans to be purposeful in their interaction with the real world. While the outcome of inquiry is knowledge, design-knowledge requires “…intentional not-knowing”, which implies that design-knowledge is based on “…reason (conscious knowledge), intuition (hardwired, unconscious knowledge), and imagination (subconscious knowledge)” (Nelson & Stolterman, 2012:39).

Design-as-service differs from science, which considers the curiosity of knowing, and art that is an expression of own thought and is thus self-serving. Design, is other-serving, and thus self-expression is not the dominant aspect (Nelson & Stolterman, 2012:42-43). The authors suggest that design-as-service requires a focus on responsibility, accountability and intention, and that design-as-service (whether for a client or with a client), leads to design-expertise. In design-as-service, the other is treated as an equal, and thus should be considered as a service relationship between equals. Even though design-as-service is a defining characteristic of design, it is not framed as such in all design disciplines. In the discipline of fashion design, design-as-service is only visible in the high-end market where designer-client interaction occurs, but where the designer is perceived as knowledgeable and the client as ‘un- knowledgeable’.

Nelson and Stolterman (2012:47-50) differentiate between the designer-facilitator and the designer-expert relationship, and mention that the roles of client and designer in each situation is unique. The key point in design-as-service is that (Nelson & Stolterman, 2012:49): “…the designer is responsible to more than just the client, and must assume accountability for others who will be affected by any particular design activity”. The above thus requires that design- communication is based in listening and not selling outcomes, encouraging a balanced relationship.

In design-as-the-systemic, design is considered to be the “…compound of integrative, inclusive, and connected thinking, aimed at taking right action…” (Nelson & Stolterman, 2012:57). Therefore design cannot function in a vacuum and thus is based in systemic relationships and connections. Design can be defined as an interdependent activity that

109 involves multiple inputs from the multi-dimensional realms of the world. Systemic design thinking requires thinking holistically, and forms the basis for logic and reasoning (Nelson & Stotlerman, 2012:58-60). Systemic design thinking is therefore an approach to learning about things or people, and how these influence things or people, through both observing the world and being in the world. Systemic design thinking focusses on “…relationships between the domains of knowledge and on patterns of relationships that emerge as a consequence…” that give meaning through interpretation and provide a map for development (Nelson and Stolterman, 2012:61).

Nelson and Stolterman (2012:93-97) argue that one of the characteristics of design is its holistic character, which requires that the designer act comprehensively and inclusively. The authors argue that a holistic design approach is achieved through careful ordering and organising of elements through intentional relations and connections (Nelson & Stolterman, 2012:102). Design can consequently be summarised as the will to improve the world, through design-wisdom that encourages change. Design is the inflection-point that can ‘action’ the desired outcome into the real world, therefore design-action can inculcate change. Systemic design thinking thus encourages interdependent design activity and thus an integrated holistic approach, as suggested by Fletcher and Grose (2012).