| There can be no design activity without representation. Ideas must be represented if
they are to be shared with others, even shared with oneself! Different representational
modes and strategies afford distinctive opportunities for reading or for transforming
design ideas. We believe Design Thinking Research must address these and
other issues of representation as well as the underlying theories.
The above quotation is from the brief text that accompanied the announcement
of the Design Thinking Research Symposium on Design Representation
in 1999. We believed then, and we still believe now, that the notion of design
representation is more complex, more serious, and more important than
has been acknowledged in contemporary research and scholarly writings. The
scope of Design Representation is formidable and to attempt comprehensive
treatment of this theme would not be a reasonable mission. Rather, we
thought it a good idea to aim at introducing the issues that we find most fascinating
by illuminating them from different angles and perspectives. This has
been our strategy for this book.
The open questions that we have posed regarding representation commence
with the most basic dilemma: what are representations? Should we regard
everything as representation, as cognitive science – or at least some of its varieties
– has done? Are representations to be seen as interim entities that always
stand for something else, which is the real reason for evoking them? Or, conversely,
are representations solid realities, objects which, once generated, have
a life of their own regardless of their functions as similes or simulations of
the “real” thing? Is the difference sharp and impermeable, or can object and
representation be merged, or be transformed into each other? If so, is this a
reversible process? And what form do representations (and, alternatively,
objects) take? Abstract or material? Propositional or pictorial? Should internal
representations, in the privacy of one’s own mind, be included in an exploration
of design representation? To what extent are normative representations
personal? Do all representations obey common rules of production and why
are some of them considered idiosyncratic? What are the historical, cultural
and social dimensions of representations? Can they be clearly stated? As we
shall see, the authors of the chapters in this book have included language,
drawings of various types, and objects as belonging in the inventory of representational
forms used in design. Is the choice of representational form a matter
of personal preference? Is it dictated by the task or might it be otherwise
contextually dependent? Many of the chapters tackle these questions. |
