Reply: Tue Jan 12 2016 08:44:04 GMT-0500 (EST)
Reply To: Design and Science
Paola Antonelli 1 Contributor
January 12, 20161 Version
Not Featured in any Journals


@article{ReplyTueJan12016, title={Reply: Tue Jan 12 2016 08:44:04 GMT-0500 (EST)}, author={Paola Antonelli}, year={2016}, note={version: 57a22cbc5a4037b8e01ad7e1}, publisher={PubPub}, }


Paola Antonelli. (2016). Reply: Tue Jan 12 2016 08:44:04 GMT-0500 (EST). PubPub, [https://www.pubpub.org/pub/56950324095d603800fde351] version: 57a22cbc5a4037b8e01ad7e1


Paola Antonelli. "Reply: Tue Jan 12 2016 08:44:04 GMT-0500 (EST)". PubPub, (2016). [https://www.pubpub.org/pub/56950324095d603800fde351] version: 57a22cbc5a4037b8e01ad7e1


Paola Antonelli. "Reply: Tue Jan 12 2016 08:44:04 GMT-0500 (EST)". PubPub, (2016). [https://www.pubpub.org/pub/56950324095d603800fde351] version: 57a22cbc5a4037b8e01ad7e1
Regarding design, its role in devising adaptive systems, and efficiency: This becomes really huge, but for some--myself included--an effort towards formal elegance is necessary for a planning exercise to be considered design. That formal elegance could be impalpable, as for instance in the design of a scent, but it needs to be acknowledged as a tension within the process. The outcome of that effort can be a failure, but the effort needs to be there. I other words, I consider the Interstate Highway System a design project, while the Keystone Pipeline is not, even though they are both systems -- Paola Antonelli
Show Threads
I am not sure precisely what you mean by formal elegance. It sounds like an epistemological aesthetic for maths or something. In any case, it seems like you are trying to make an important distinction between projects like the Interstate system and the Keystone pipeline and I'd like to undersatnd what it is.
Elegance in Roundabout of Highway system: https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3115186,-2.4168729,654m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
Elegance in the Cloverleaf of same Highway system: https://www.google.com/maps/@53.353064,-2.49984,1306m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
Something along the lines of R. Buckminster Fuller's "When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty but when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." came to mind reading your comment, Ms. Antonelli. Though I imagine you mean a more explicit effort must be made to reach an aesthetic quality in order to be considered design (whereas some might be happy to say "this is design with good aesthetic, and that is design with bad aesthetic").
So the question is: is a notion of aesthetics ("formal elegance") contained within a definition of design, or not? And further: is it time to formulate a new definition of design? I believe this is part of what is happening currently, as mentioned above.