Design and the aesthetics of research

Abstract

Mark Roxburgh’s research over the past decade has focused on the evolving conceptualization, discourse and development of research methodologies for design. This has lead him to question the historical pattern of design whereby the methods and epistemologies of other disciplines are used without addressing the differences between them and design. Design is a complex activity enmeshed in many aspects of our lives. In his article in Design Issues (1992), ‘Prometheus of the Everyday: The Ecology of the Artificial and the Designer’s Responsibility’, Manzini foregrounds the relational nature of this complexity by conceiving design (the artificial) as having an ecology. Roxburgh has written about these matters but his critique has conformed to the conventions of academic publishing and he has found articulating aspects of such complexity constrained by the limits of written language. Increasingly, in design, visualization is used to map complex relationships between things, ideas and actions. In this essentially visual essay, Roxburgh is attempting to graphically identify and explore the relationships of some of these concepts in a manner that echoes these trends and his own research practice. He is aware that sketches of complex phenomena, through a process of interpretation and abstraction, become somewhat reductive. The moments he draws on in crafting the depictions of his views are presented episodically rather than chronologically.

Roxburgh sketches out three key historical conceptions of design and the ramifications they have had on our perceptions and practice of it. He depicts these conceptions as being drawn from traditions outside of design and suggests that an alternative strategy may lie within design itself. This strategy calls for an engagement with what he calls the aesthetics of research. He suggests that it is imperative that design encompasses an aesthetic engagement with the world at all levels, and most importantly at the point of design research and conception, for our experience of design is fundamentally aesthetic. He is aware that there is an apparent irony in his use of non design theories to frame aspects of his view but this is a necessary strategy to critique the ontological assumptions inherent within the conceptions of design that he characterizes (one could even say ‘caricatures’). Roxburgh takes the position that there is nothing essentially given about design consciousness. Rather, the characterizations of design consciousness that he outlines all carry (usually implicit) ontological assumptions that may be inappropriate and/or limit design practice. The depiction of design that he offers is based instead on an alternative ontology. While this cannot be empirically verified (no ontology can), he proposes it as a way of extending and critiquing usual conceptions of design practice. No doubt this in turn will be found to have shortcomings of its own.