BibTex RIS Cite

Endüstriyel Tasarımda Paradigma Kaymaları İşlev/Anlam İkiliğinin Aşılmasına İlişkin Bir Öneri

Year 2013, Volume: 9 Issue: 15 - Volume: 9 Issue: 15, 7 - 20, 14.07.2016

Sıdıka Benan Çelikel Semra Aydınlı

https://doi.org/10.23835/tasarimkuram.240906

Abstract

Tasarım alanındaki paradigma kaymaları, 1960’larda bilim felsefesi alanında ortaya çıkan pozitivizm sonrası yaklaşımları takip eder. Bu çalışmada, ilkin bilimi, rasyonel bir bilme tarzı olarak gören ‘pozitivist (mantıkçı) bilim anlayışı’ ile ‘işlevselci tasarım anlayışı’ arasındaki ilişki kurulacaktır. Ardından, ‘anlam’ı tasarımın yeni temeli haline getirmeye çalıfşan ‘insan-merkezli tasarım anlayışı’ ile pozitivizm sonrası yeni bilim felsefesi yaklaşımları arasındaki ilişki ele alınacaktır. Tasarım alanına ilişkin paradigma kaymaları, genellikle işlev odaklı bir tasarım anlayışından başlayan ve anlam odaklı bir başkasında sonlanan bir bağlamda ele alınır. Ne var ki, bu çaışma, tasarımın, ‘işlev’ ya da ‘anlam’ temeli üzerinde inşa edilme girişimlerinin aynı epistemolojik varsayıma dayandıkları iddiasıyla ‘işlev/anlam ikiliği’nin Aktör-Network Teorisi (ANT) aracılığıyla nasıl aşılabileceğini ortaya konmaya çalışacaktır.

Keywords

İşlevselcilik Pozitivizm Post-pozitivizm İşlev-merkezli tasarım insan-merkezli tasarım Aktör-Network Teorisi (ANT)

References

  • Aicher, O. 1994. The World as Design. Berlin: Ernst & Sohn.
  • Altuğ, T. 2001.Dile Gelen Felsefe. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
  • Archer, B. 2005. Foreword. In: Krippendorff K. The Semantic Turn: A New Foundation for Design. London: Taylor & Francis, pp. xiii-xiv.
  • Ayer, A.J. 2010 [1936]. Dil, Doğuluk ve Mantık. İstanbul: Metis Yayınevi.
  • Demir, Ö. 1997. Bilim Felsefesi. Ankara: Vadi Yayınları.
  • Erdoğan, E. 2011. Bilim ve Metafizik Üzerine Tarihsel Bir Soruflturma. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.
  • Erdoğan, E. 2009. Aristoteles’ten Newton’a Paradigmatik Bilim Tarihi. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.
  • Fallan, K. 2010. Design History: Understanding Theory and Method. New York: Berg Publishing.
  • Galison, P. 1990. Aufbau/Bauhaus: Logical Positivism and Architectural Modernism. Critical Inquiry 16 (4), pp. 709-752.
  • Gattei, S. 2008. Thomas Kuhn’s “Linguistic Turn” and the Legacy of Logical Empiricism: Incommensurability, Rationality and the Search for Truth. Hampshire: Ashgate.
  • Godfrey-Smith, P. 2003. Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Chicago: University Press.
  • Harman, G. 2009. Prince of Networks: Bruno Latour and Metaphysics. Melbourne: Re.press.
  • Harries, K. 2009. Art Matters: A Critical Commentary on Heidegger’s ‘The Origin of the Work of Art”. Springer.
  • Harris, J. 2005. The Ordering of Things: Organization in Bruno Latour. The Sociological Review 53 (1), pp. 163-177.
  • Heidegger, M. 2007 [1935-6]. Modern Science, Metaphysics and Mathematics. In: Krell, D F et al. eds. Basic Writings: Martin Heidegger. London: Routledge, pp. 271-305.
  • Heidegger, M. 2002 [1938]. The Age of the World Picture. In:Young, J and Hayness, K et al. eds. and tr. Martin Heidegger: Off the Beaten Track. Cambridge: University Press, pp. 57-85.
  • Heidegger, M. 2002 [1943]. Nietzsche's Word: "God Is Dead". In: Young, J & Hayness, K et al. eds and tr. Martin Heidegger: Off the Beaten Track. Cambridge: University Press, pp. 157-199.
  • Heskett, J. 1987. Industrial Design. In: Conway, H et al. eds. Design History: A Students’ Handbook. London: Routledge, pp. 85-101.
  • Ibarra, A. and Mormann, T. 2005. Logical Empirism. In: Mitcham, C et al. eds. Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics V 3. London: Thomsan Gale, pp. 1138- 1141.
  • Katz, B.M. 1997. Technology and Design: A New Agenda. Technology and Culture 38 (2), pp. 452-466.
  • Krippendorff, K. 2006. The Semantic Turn: A New Foundation for Design. London: Taylor & Francis.
  • Latour, B. 2008 [1993]. Biz Hiç Modern Olmadık: Simetrik Antropoloji Denemesi. İstanbul: Norgunk Yayıncılık.
  • Latour, B. 2008. A Cautious Prometheus? A Few Steps Toward a Philosophy of Design (with Special Attention to Peter Sloterdijk). In: Glynne J., Hackney, F. and Minton V., eds. Networks of Design: Proceedings of the 2008 Annual I nternational Conference of the Design History Society. Cornwall, 3-6 September, 2008. University College Falmouth, pp.1-13.
  • Latour, B. 2008 [2005a].What is the Style of Matters of Concern? Two Lectures in Empirical Philosophy. Amsterdam: Van Gorcum.
  • Latour, B. 2005b. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: University Press.
  • Latour, B. 1999. On Recalling ANT. In: Law, J and Hassard, J et al. eds. Actor Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers/Sociological Review, 15-25.
  • Locke, J. 1999 [1670].An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University.
  • Loos, A. 1966 [1908]. Ornament and Crime. In:Münz. L and Künstler. G et al. eds. Adolf Loos: Pioneer of Modern Architecture. New York: Frederick A. Praeger Publishers, 226-231.
  • Michl, J. 1995. Form Follows What? The Modernist Notion of Function as a Carte Blanche [online]. Available at: http://janmichl.com/eng.fff- hai.html [Accessed: 2012].
  • Olsen, B. 2003. Material Culture After Text: Re-membering Things. Norwegian Archeological Review 36 (2), 87-104.
  • Rockmore, T. 1995. Heidegger and French Philosophy: Humanism Anti-humanism and Being. London: Routledge.
  • Shiner, L. 2010 [2001]. Sanatın İcadı: Bir Kültür Tarihi. İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
  • Sullivan, L.H. 1896. The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered. [Online]. Available at: http://ia600403.us.archive.org/11/items/tallof ficebuildi00sull/tallofficebuildi00sull.pdf [Accessed: 2012].
  • Whitehead, A.N. 2012 [1919]. The Concept of Nature. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
  • Wittgenstein, L. 2009 [1953]. Philosophical Investigations. Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Young, J. 2001. Heidegger’s Philosophy of Art. Cambridge: University Press.
  • Wittgenstein, L. 2002 [1921]. Tractatus Logico- Philosophicus. London and New York: Routledge.

Year 2013, Volume: 9 Issue: 15 - Volume: 9 Issue: 15, 7 - 20, 14.07.2016

Sıdıka Benan Çelikel Semra Aydınlı

https://doi.org/10.23835/tasarimkuram.240906

Abstract

Paradigm shifts in the field of design follow the post-positivist approaches of philosophy of science that emerged in the 1960’s. In the present study, first of all, the (logical) positivist understanding of science that concieves science as a rational way of knowing will be associated with the functionalist understanding of design. Thereafter, the relation between the human-centered design approach that designates the new foundation of design as ‘meaning’ and the post-positivist approaches of philosophy of science will be covered. Paradigm shifts in the field of design are generally considered within a context in covers barely function-oriented or meaning-oriented approaches. Nevertheless, this study aims to indicate that the attempt of constructing design on the foundation of either ‘function’ or ‘meaning’ is indeed based on the same epistemological assumption. The attempt of overcoming what is called ‘function/meaning dichotomy’ will be set forth via the Actor-Network Theory, abbreviated as ANT.

Keywords

Functionalism positivism post-positivism function-centered design human-centered design Actor-Network Theory (ANT)

References

  • Aicher, O. 1994. The World as Design. Berlin: Ernst & Sohn.
  • Altuğ, T. 2001.Dile Gelen Felsefe. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
  • Archer, B. 2005. Foreword. In: Krippendorff K. The Semantic Turn: A New Foundation for Design. London: Taylor & Francis, pp. xiii-xiv.
  • Ayer, A.J. 2010 [1936]. Dil, Doğuluk ve Mantık. İstanbul: Metis Yayınevi.
  • Demir, Ö. 1997. Bilim Felsefesi. Ankara: Vadi Yayınları.
  • Erdoğan, E. 2011. Bilim ve Metafizik Üzerine Tarihsel Bir Soruflturma. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.
  • Erdoğan, E. 2009. Aristoteles’ten Newton’a Paradigmatik Bilim Tarihi. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.
  • Fallan, K. 2010. Design History: Understanding Theory and Method. New York: Berg Publishing.
  • Galison, P. 1990. Aufbau/Bauhaus: Logical Positivism and Architectural Modernism. Critical Inquiry 16 (4), pp. 709-752.
  • Gattei, S. 2008. Thomas Kuhn’s “Linguistic Turn” and the Legacy of Logical Empiricism: Incommensurability, Rationality and the Search for Truth. Hampshire: Ashgate.
  • Godfrey-Smith, P. 2003. Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Chicago: University Press.
  • Harman, G. 2009. Prince of Networks: Bruno Latour and Metaphysics. Melbourne: Re.press.
  • Harries, K. 2009. Art Matters: A Critical Commentary on Heidegger’s ‘The Origin of the Work of Art”. Springer.
  • Harris, J. 2005. The Ordering of Things: Organization in Bruno Latour. The Sociological Review 53 (1), pp. 163-177.
  • Heidegger, M. 2007 [1935-6]. Modern Science, Metaphysics and Mathematics. In: Krell, D F et al. eds. Basic Writings: Martin Heidegger. London: Routledge, pp. 271-305.
  • Heidegger, M. 2002 [1938]. The Age of the World Picture. In:Young, J and Hayness, K et al. eds. and tr. Martin Heidegger: Off the Beaten Track. Cambridge: University Press, pp. 57-85.
  • Heidegger, M. 2002 [1943]. Nietzsche's Word: "God Is Dead". In: Young, J & Hayness, K et al. eds and tr. Martin Heidegger: Off the Beaten Track. Cambridge: University Press, pp. 157-199.
  • Heskett, J. 1987. Industrial Design. In: Conway, H et al. eds. Design History: A Students’ Handbook. London: Routledge, pp. 85-101.
  • Ibarra, A. and Mormann, T. 2005. Logical Empirism. In: Mitcham, C et al. eds. Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics V 3. London: Thomsan Gale, pp. 1138- 1141.
  • Katz, B.M. 1997. Technology and Design: A New Agenda. Technology and Culture 38 (2), pp. 452-466.
  • Krippendorff, K. 2006. The Semantic Turn: A New Foundation for Design. London: Taylor & Francis.
  • Latour, B. 2008 [1993]. Biz Hiç Modern Olmadık: Simetrik Antropoloji Denemesi. İstanbul: Norgunk Yayıncılık.
  • Latour, B. 2008. A Cautious Prometheus? A Few Steps Toward a Philosophy of Design (with Special Attention to Peter Sloterdijk). In: Glynne J., Hackney, F. and Minton V., eds. Networks of Design: Proceedings of the 2008 Annual I nternational Conference of the Design History Society. Cornwall, 3-6 September, 2008. University College Falmouth, pp.1-13.
  • Latour, B. 2008 [2005a].What is the Style of Matters of Concern? Two Lectures in Empirical Philosophy. Amsterdam: Van Gorcum.
  • Latour, B. 2005b. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: University Press.
  • Latour, B. 1999. On Recalling ANT. In: Law, J and Hassard, J et al. eds. Actor Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers/Sociological Review, 15-25.
  • Locke, J. 1999 [1670].An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University.
  • Loos, A. 1966 [1908]. Ornament and Crime. In:Münz. L and Künstler. G et al. eds. Adolf Loos: Pioneer of Modern Architecture. New York: Frederick A. Praeger Publishers, 226-231.
  • Michl, J. 1995. Form Follows What? The Modernist Notion of Function as a Carte Blanche [online]. Available at: http://janmichl.com/eng.fff- hai.html [Accessed: 2012].
  • Olsen, B. 2003. Material Culture After Text: Re-membering Things. Norwegian Archeological Review 36 (2), 87-104.
  • Rockmore, T. 1995. Heidegger and French Philosophy: Humanism Anti-humanism and Being. London: Routledge.
  • Shiner, L. 2010 [2001]. Sanatın İcadı: Bir Kültür Tarihi. İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
  • Sullivan, L.H. 1896. The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered. [Online]. Available at: http://ia600403.us.archive.org/11/items/tallof ficebuildi00sull/tallofficebuildi00sull.pdf [Accessed: 2012].
  • Whitehead, A.N. 2012 [1919]. The Concept of Nature. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
  • Wittgenstein, L. 2009 [1953]. Philosophical Investigations. Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Young, J. 2001. Heidegger’s Philosophy of Art. Cambridge: University Press.
  • Wittgenstein, L. 2002 [1921]. Tractatus Logico- Philosophicus. London and New York: Routledge.
There are 37 citations in total.

Details

Other ID JA39TV39MD
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Sıdıka Benan Çelikel This is me

Semra Aydınlı This is me

Publication Date July 14, 2016
Published in Issue Year 2013 Volume: 9 Issue: 15 - Volume: 9 Issue: 15

Cite

APA Çelikel, S. B., & Aydınlı, S. (2016). Endüstriyel Tasarımda Paradigma Kaymaları İşlev/Anlam İkiliğinin Aşılmasına İlişkin Bir Öneri. Tasarım + Kuram, 9(15), 7-20. https://doi.org/10.23835/tasarimkuram.240906
AMA Çelikel SB, Aydınlı S. Endüstriyel Tasarımda Paradigma Kaymaları İşlev/Anlam İkiliğinin Aşılmasına İlişkin Bir Öneri. Tasarım + Kuram. July 2016;9(15):7-20. doi:10.23835/tasarimkuram.240906
Chicago Çelikel, Sıdıka Benan, and Semra Aydınlı. “Endüstriyel Tasarımda Paradigma Kaymaları İşlev/Anlam İkiliğinin Aşılmasına İlişkin Bir Öneri”. Tasarım + Kuram 9, no. 15 (July 2016): 7-20. https://doi.org/10.23835/tasarimkuram.240906.
EndNote Çelikel SB, Aydınlı S (July 1, 2016) Endüstriyel Tasarımda Paradigma Kaymaları İşlev/Anlam İkiliğinin Aşılmasına İlişkin Bir Öneri. Tasarım + Kuram 9 15 7–20.
IEEE S. B. Çelikel and S. Aydınlı, “Endüstriyel Tasarımda Paradigma Kaymaları İşlev/Anlam İkiliğinin Aşılmasına İlişkin Bir Öneri”, Tasarım + Kuram, vol. 9, no. 15, pp. 7–20, 2016, doi: 10.23835/tasarimkuram.240906.
ISNAD Çelikel, Sıdıka Benan - Aydınlı, Semra. “Endüstriyel Tasarımda Paradigma Kaymaları İşlev/Anlam İkiliğinin Aşılmasına İlişkin Bir Öneri”. Tasarım + Kuram 9/15 (July 2016), 7-20. https://doi.org/10.23835/tasarimkuram.240906.
JAMA Çelikel SB, Aydınlı S. Endüstriyel Tasarımda Paradigma Kaymaları İşlev/Anlam İkiliğinin Aşılmasına İlişkin Bir Öneri. Tasarım + Kuram. 2016;9:7–20.
MLA Çelikel, Sıdıka Benan and Semra Aydınlı. “Endüstriyel Tasarımda Paradigma Kaymaları İşlev/Anlam İkiliğinin Aşılmasına İlişkin Bir Öneri”. Tasarım + Kuram, vol. 9, no. 15, 2016, pp. 7-20, doi:10.23835/tasarimkuram.240906.
Vancouver Çelikel SB, Aydınlı S. Endüstriyel Tasarımda Paradigma Kaymaları İşlev/Anlam İkiliğinin Aşılmasına İlişkin Bir Öneri. Tasarım + Kuram. 2016;9(15):7-20.