Abstract:
Alexander (1964) and Jones (1992) argued that design-by-drawing was not up to the
task of dealing with complex design 'problems'. In a similar vein Lawson (1980, P 18)
argued that 'problems' which aren't visible tend not to come to the design-by-drawers
attention. To overcome this Alexander developed a 'language' of representation,
based on mathematics, to help eliminate this subjective bias of designers in
determining the key issues and relationships in complex design settings. Design
Methods promoted a rational procedure of analysis / synthesis as the natural order of
design to replace the intuitive model that dominated. On this basis Design Methods
has long been regarded as flawed, however I would argue that the question of
representation that Alexander in particular, and Jones implicitly, addressed was
correct, though it remains unresolved.
Previously I have defined the "crisis of the artificial" as being the challenge that
critical theory has mounted to the still commonplace view of design, as a largely
natural and intuitive process, by examining the ideologically constructed nature of the
design process (Roxburgh 2004). In this paper I will outline an expanded definition of
this term that proposes that this crisis is also a result of design still not having a
suitable 'language' through which to communicate, to ourselves, our perceptions and
experiences of the complex world we live in and shape as designers. Using my
ongoing experience of the potential of observational photography as a key research
method for design, I will argue that a reflective, phenomenological perspective should
inform the development of such a 'language'. In this sense I am making a counter
claim to Design Methods; that is that subjectivity is a necessary component for
success in any design / research enterprise; and that visual communication design
could playa central role in the development of appropriate forms of 'language' to
represent complex design situations, despite the earlier perceived problems of
drawing. This research is part of a continuing inquiry that asks the question 'Can we
see what we know first, in order to reveal what we don't know?'
