By way of attemp­ting to ela­bo­ra­te an this sug­ges­ti­on, con­sider the fol­lo­wing spe­cu­la­ti­ve observations:

1. The gre­at tempt­a­ti­on of any game is for it to beco­me too self-con­tai­ned, an acti­vi­ty of purely aes­the­tic plea­su­re or tech­ni­cal achie­ve­ment. Inso­far as all play beco­mes not a tem­po­ra­ry sepa­ra­ti­on from quo­ti­di­an rea­li­ties, but a pull away from life, it beco­mes sub­ject to social cri­ti­cism. The artist con­cer­ned only with form, the engi­neer con­cer­ned only with tech­ni­cal solutions—the pur­su­it of art for art’s sake, engi­nee­ring for the sake of engineering—can be chal­len­ged by more inclu­si­ve issues and social orders.

2. The human prac­ti­ce of desig­ning sim­ply as desig­ning can be said to deepen the ten­den­cy inher­ent in all play by exhi­bi­ting a mark­ed incli­na­ti­on to distance the desi­gner from self-exami­na­ti­on or social respon­si­bi­li­ty. Stu­dies of the psy­cho­lo­gy and beha­vi­or of com­pu­ter hackers dra­ma­ti­cal­ly con­firm this point,[32] but it is hin­ted at as well by the ethos of each design tra­di­ti­on. The engi­nee­ring tra­di­ti­on of obe­dience and the avant-gar­de tra­di­ti­on of inde­pen­dence in the arts are but two expres­si­ons of dis­junc­tions, from self and community.

3. Desig­ning, unli­ke more limi­t­ed forms of play, con­sti­tu­tes a gene­ral pul­ling away from or bra­cke­ting of the world that can have imme­dia­te prac­ti­cal impact. The para­do­xi­cal strengths of the mathe­ma­tiza­ti­on and mode­ling of modern design are that, more effec­tively than ever befo­re, they sepa­ra­te from the world of expe­ri­ence and pro­vi­de new levers for the tech­no­lo­gi­cal mani­pu­la­ti­on of that world. Modern desig­ning opens its­elf to being pul­led back into the world bey­ond any­thing that desi­gners them­sel­ves might ima­gi­ne, desi­re, or plan. Hence, again, the­re exists a fun­da­men­tal obli­ga­ti­on to remem­ber the mate­ri­als, return to real things, and not let minia­tu­re making beco­me so minia­tu­re that it cea­ses to reflect and enga­ge the world.

4. Per­haps nowhe­re is the chall­enge of remem­be­ring rea­li­ty more important than in com­pu­ter-aided design. Alt­hough tre­men­dous­ly powerful and attrac­ti­ve, com­pu­ter-aided design is equal­ly dan­ge­rous, pre­cis­e­ly becau­se even more than desig­ning with pen­cil and paper against a back­ground of prac­ti­cal expe­ri­ence with real-world arti­facts, design with com­pu­ters works in a rare­fied medi­um with a faci­li­ty that tends to deny the need for world­ly expe­ri­ence. As Euge­ne Fer­gu­son has argued, To accom­plish a design of any con­sidera­ble complexity—a pas­sen­ger ele­va­tor or a rail­road loco­mo­ti­ve or a lar­ge heat exch­an­ger in an acid plant—requires a con­ti­nuous stream of cal­cu­la­ti­ons, judgments, and com­pro­mi­ses that should only be made by engi­neers expe­ri­en­ced in the kind of sys­tem being desi­gned. The “big” decis­i­ons obvious­ly should be based an inti­ma­te, first­hand, inter­na­li­zed know­ledge of ele­va­tors, loco­mo­ti­ves, or heat exch­an­gers.[33]

5. But just as obvious­ly, in a socie­ty in which ele­va­tors, loco­mo­ti­ves, and heat exch­an­gers are incre­asing­ly run by com­pu­ters, and child­ren rather than play­ing with trains play with video game trains, it is dif­fi­cult to cul­ti­va­te an inti­ma­te, first­hand, inter­na­li­zed know­ledge of mate­ri­al rea­li­ty. Vir­tu­al expe­ri­ence is no sub­sti­tu­te for phy­si­cal expe­ri­ence. The pro­blems of design are not iso­la­ted in design. They are part of, even at one with, the lar­ger mate­ri­al world and cul­tu­re as a who­le. To return to real things is a chall­enge throug­hout the ways of life cha­rac­te­ristic of post­mo­dern society.

6. The real expe­ri­ence of strugg­ling to return to real things taking ethics bey­ond fun­da­men­tal prin­ci­ples into spe­ci­fic cases will be the basis for deve­lo­p­ment of a phro­ne­sis of the techno-lifeworld.

The pro­blems with design are not just tech­ni­cal or aes­the­tic but also ethi­cal. Inde­ed, intro­du­cing ethics into design revels the deepest aspects of our dif­fi­cul­ties. But the dif­fi­cul­ties we face can­not begin to be addres­sed wit­hout clear-sigh­ted­ness. To attempt to reco­gni­ze them is its­elf to strugg­le for the right and the good.[34]

Die­ser Essay wur­de mit freund­li­cher Geneh­mi­gung des Autors ent­nom­men aus:
Mit­cham, Carl: Steps toward a Phi­lo­so­phy of Engi­nee­ring. His­to­ri­co-Phi­lo­so­phi­cal and Cri­ti­cal Essays. Lon­don: Row­man & Litt­le­field, 2020.


Ausgabe Nr. 18, Frühjahr 2021

Datenschutz-Übersicht
Sprache für die Form * Forum für Design und Rhetorik

Diese Website verwendet Cookies, damit wir dir die bestmögliche Benutzererfahrung bieten können. Cookie-Informationen werden in deinem Browser gespeichert und führen Funktionen aus, wie das Wiedererkennen von dir, wenn du auf unsere Website zurückkehrst, und hilft unserem Team zu verstehen, welche Abschnitte der Website für dich am interessantesten und nützlichsten sind.

Unbedingt notwendige Cookies

Unbedingt notwendige Cookies sollten jederzeit aktiviert sein, damit wir deine Einstellungen für die Cookie-Einstellungen speichern können.