Design is almost overnight the centerpiece of military doctrine and the U.S. Army has gotten design thinking quite right. The struggle to get design thinking ensconced in Army doctrine, though, is no easy feat. More in Design Observer Also, covered previously on Archinect.
9 Comments
Technique is independent of ideology.
Clearly...
Technique is definitely NOT independent of ideology
Javier, i would say technique is independent but that practice is not. Meaning a good technique can be applied by an ideology to practice. In such a formula practice and not ideology or technique are what is key.
Techniques don't just land in our laps fully-formed, as if out of the head of Zeus or something. Whether it's "design intelligence" or whatever else, they emerge from a social process that IS ideological, and they get appropriated in ideological ways as well. As David Harvey would have it, to posit a technique as somehow above ideology is a scientific ideology of neutrality in and of itself. This is a great case to study because the question is why we get something like "design intelligence" and why might it seem as non-ideological as it does, and yet it totally has to do with severing the subversive or thorny questions of design.
A really freakin' good read:
Population, Resources, and the Ideology of Science
David Harvey
Economic Geography, Vol. 50, No. 3 (Jul., 1974), pp. 256-277
Published by: Clark University
http://www.jstor.org/stable/142863
If you can't get the pdf send me an email and I'll send it to you
I agree with Nam about practice.
Technique might be born in ideology, but after that, it tends to travel.
certainly. and is it applied post-ideologically?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.