About the Malpass article

… well, neat! But what’s the point? Now we can say “this is Critical Design” or “this is Associative Design” and talk about whether it uses Horatian or Juvenalian satire… what does that do for us? Especially in the conclusion, it sounds like he’s saying “well, Design has to have an intellectual basis, especially the parts that aren’t so immediately practical, so here’s another bit of Design Theory.” Theory for theory’s sake.

Maybe I am being overly cranky here. What did I miss?


2 thoughts on “About the Malpass article

  1. I’m not sure I agree it’s theory for theory’s sake. One of the common complaints against design is that it’s non-legitimate or not meaningful because it’s “just art” or whatever. Having theory around something is useful for legitimizing it and being able to understand it though, for example, where it falls into an ontology.

    (I think this was my favorite overview of anything in this field so far, and that it did a really good job of categorizing and contextualizing things that felt a little fuzzy to me beforehand.)

    • Yeah, but I mean, I could make a nice sandwich, and then I could say “this sandwich falls neatly into my ontology of sandwiches, as being one of the Triple Decker variety, and the Deli style”, but it doesn’t change whether it tastes good. Why do we need to legitimize sandwich-making?

      (maybe I’m just saying that I think I’m okay with critical/speculative design just being art.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s