“Architectural sketches” (Author, 2022)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction: Opening Up the Space of Drawing Again
3. The Representational Paradigm: Three Basic Assumptions About Drawing by Hand
4. Entering the Space of Drawing: The Performative Paradigm
4.1 From neutral surface to inhabited topos
4.2. From traces to situated figurations
4.3. From lines-as-marks to lines-as-processes
5. Conclusion: The Locus of Creation Explored
The essay that follows has been published in six installments; this, the sixth and final installment, contains section 5.
But you can also download and read or share a .pdf of the complete text of this essay, including the REFERENCES, by scrolling down to the bottom of this post and clicking on the Download tab.
An earlier version of this essay was previously published as (Paans, 2024a), except for the Introduction, which was written specifically for APP.
5. Conclusion: The Locus of Creation Explored
Summarizing by way of conclusion, lines are active processes that are conjoined in situated figurations. In turn, these figurations appear within a topos, or generative space of architectural creation. Criticizing the representational paradigm, the alterative account I sketched out in section 4 aims to animate every element of the drawing, from the lines to the figure and the surface. Instead of being representational, the alternative paradigm I described is performative. It ascribes an active and animated character to the drawing and the practices involved in it.
To adopt this dynamic perspective is important, as it allows us to conceptualize the locus of creation in architectural design in a different manner. There is not enough space here to explore all aspects in-depth, but we can start by paying attention to two characteristics:
First, the locus of creation is not located “in the head”. Nor is it completely contained in the representational contents of a drawing. That which is depicted in an image always points beyond itself and opens up towards the non-conceptual and the allusive. The locus of creation is not some originary point where an initial idea comes from but is contained in the process of creation itself. Unless it is witnessed, it cannot be found, pointed at or defined in clear terms.
Figure 9: A model of drawing practices and the locus of creation. The creative process unites drawer, lines, and figurations in the context of a topos. (Author 2024)
One must catch the creative process “in motion” in order to understand where the locus of creation resides. Correspondingly, it is misleading to focus too much on the “master sketch” that acquires a mythic status. Instead, we would acquire a much more accurate view of the creative process if we investigate the developing relations between the drawer, the drawn, the surface and the resulting thinking process. It cannot be emphasized enough that the drawing surface is a topos, while lines are processes. Keeping these two points in mind enables us to fully appreciate the inherent performative character of drawing, as opposed to its representational counterpart. The person drawing the line is changed by the practice of drawing, as the body remembers the structures that are gesturally enacted on the surface. While the idea might be intellectually elaborated through the capacity for deliberative reasoning, the entire body is materially involved with the drawing to actualize it in the world. The drawer, the drawn, and the space of drawing by hand form an aggregate, a locus of creation that can only be observed “in action.” In this sense, the aesthetics or “the science of sensibility” is first and foremost a practice of observing the emerging relations between drawer, topos and lines/figuration in action within the context of a creative process (see Fig. 9 above). By paying attention, the inherent richness of the drawing opens up and allows for inhabitative imagination and expansion.
Second, the idea of a locus implies a locality, a focal point. So, we should inquire where the “locus of creation” is actually located. Put concisely, it resides in the effective juxtaposition of its contributing elements. In the moment that thinking processes, drawn lines, embodied gestures, the spatiality of the surface and perceptual experiences come together, all elements for true creativity are brought together in a single point in space and time. The fact that the drawn line possesses a certain permanence but is not yet completely “settled” turns it into a visual instrument that is perpetually effective. It can be revisited again and again yet allows also for further definition and determination. Above, I described the drawing as a “locus of tensions”—the incomplete and the defined, the vague and the precise, the technical and the poetic all exist side by side. Often these elements resist closure but they spur the process of creation. The tension inherent in the drawing is often the result of incongruities between the elements that are present in it: logically strictly speaking, there seems little reason to juxtapose them. By concentrating these elements in the space of a single drawing, new perceptual experiences suggest themselves, emerging into the cognitive foreground once an idea is revisited again and again. The effectiveness of the drawing keeps it “at work.” No matter how active and dynamic the drawing is, however, it is only so in relation to a perceptive and creative subject who is open to what it suggests. The very space of the drawing exerts its own character and creates a place for thinking through its elements. Its inherent orientation is organized by the most basic categorial system of our thinking, and as such resonates with it.
So, by adopting a dynamic view of the practice of drawing lines, we can grasp, in the context of architectural creation, how inherently relational, embodied, gesturally anchored, navigational, and spatially oriented the hand-drawn lines are. Moreover, we can see how they play out within the productive tensions of openness and determination, poetic force, aesthetic sensibility and reasoned argument. But above all, we can grasp how in situating even the first line on a surface, we fully enter the “space of drawing” itself.
REFERENCES
(Ammon, 2019) Ammon, S. “Drawing Inferences: Thinking with 6B (and Sketching Paper).” Philosophy & Technology 32: 591–612. Available online at URL = <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13347-018-0323-5>.
(Ammon and Capdevila-Werning, 2017). S. Ammon and R. Capdevila-Werning (eds.), The Active Image. Architecture and Engineering in the Age of Modeling. Cham: Springer Verlag.
(Aristotle, 1994). Aristotle. Trans. J. Barnes et al. Aristotle. Complete Works. Princeton NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. Vol. 1.
(Bachelard, 1994). Bachelard, G. The Poetics of Space. Trans. M. Jolas. Boston MA: Beacon Press.
(Berger, 2001). Berger, J. “To Take Paper, to Draw: A World Through Lines.” In D. Chasman, D. and E. Chiang (eds.), Drawing Us In. Boston MA: Beacon Press. Pp. 118–124.
(Betsky and Eeuwens, 2008). Betsky, A. and Eeuwens, A. False Flat: Why Dutch Design Is So Good. New York: Phaidon Press.
(Bohm, 2004). Bohm, D. On Creativity. London: Routledge.
(Bonsiepe, 2003). Bonsiepe, G. (2003). “Arabesken der Rationalität, Anmerkungen zur Methodologie des Design.” In C. Boldt (ed.), Ulmer Texte. Köln: Köln International School of Design. Pp. 7–47.
(Bredekamp, 2015). Bredekamp, H. Der Bildakt. Berlin: Klaus Wagenbach Verlag.
(Burke, 1757/2015). Burke, E. A Philosophical Enquiry Into the Sublime and the Beautiful. Oxford: Oxford Univ Press.
(Charitonidou, 2022). Charitonidou, M. “Frank Gehry’s Non-Trivial Drawings as Gestures: Drawdlings and a Kinaesthetic Approach to Architecture.” Journal of Visual Art Practice 21, 2: 147-174. Available online at URL = <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14702029.2021.2022292>.
(Cocker, 2017). Cocker, E. “Hypothesis #6. Distancing the If and Then.” In N. Gansterer (ed.), Drawing a Hypothesis. Figures of Thought. New York: Springer. Pp. 97–108.
(Cook, 2014). Cook, P. Drawing: The Motive Force of Architecture. Chichester UK: John Wiley and Sons.
(Cross, 1982). Cross, N. “Designerly Ways of Knowing.” Design Studies 3, 4: 221-227.
(Csikszentmihalyi, 2008). Csikszentmihalyi, M. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: HarperCollins.
(Csikszentmihalyi, 2013). Csikszentmihalyi, M. Creativity: The Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: HarperCollins.
(De Certeau, 1988). De Certeau, M. The Practice of Everyday Life. Trans. S. Rendell. Berkeley CA: Univ. of California Press.
(Deleuze and Guattari, 1987). Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. A Thousand Plateaus. Minneapolis MN: Univ. of Minnesota Press.
(Dernie, 2013). Dernie, D. “Drawing and the Material Conditions of Space”. TRACEY journal: drawing knowledge. Loughborough UK: Loughborough Univ.
(Derrida, 1982). Derrida, J. (1982). Différance. In J. Derrida, Margins of Philosophy. Trans. A. Bass. Sussex UK: Harvester. Pp. 1–28.
(Emmons, 2007). Emmons, P. “Drawn to Scale: The Imaginative Inhabitation of Architectural Drawings. In (Frascari, Hale, and Starkey, 2007: pp. 64–78).
(Emmons, 2019). Emmons, P. Drawing Imagining Building: Embodiment in Architectural Design Practices. London: Routledge.
(Fauconnier and Turner, 2002). Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
(Fitch, 2011). Fitch, D. “Drawing from Drawing.” In (Kantrowitz, Brew, and Fava, 2011: pp. 147–150).
(Flusser, 1994). Flusser, V. Gesten: Versuch einer Phänomenologie. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Verlag.
(Flusser, 2004). Flusser, V. “Line and Surface” In V. Flusser, Vilém Flusser: Writings. Trans.E. Eisel. Minneapolis MN: Univ. of Minnesota Press. Pp. 21–34.
(Frascari, 2007). Frascari, M. “A Reflection on Paper and its Virtues within the Material and Invisible Factures of Architecture.” In (Frascari, Hale, Starkey, 2007: pp. 23–33).
(Frascari, 2009). Frascari, M. Lines as Architectural Thinking. Architectural Theory Review 14: 200–212. Available online at URL = <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13264820903341605>.
(Frascari, Hale, and Starkey, 2007) M. Frascari, J. Hale, and B. Starkey (eds.), From Models to Drawings. London: Routledge.
(Gadamer, 1960/2013). Gadamer, H.G. Truth and Method. Trans. J. Weinsheimer and D.G. Marshall. London: Bloomsbury.
(Geer, 2011). Geer, T. “What We Illustrate When We Draw: Normative Visual Processing in Beginner Drawings, and the Capacity to Observe Detail.” In (Kantrowitz, Brew, and Fava, 2011: pp. 45-50).
(Goodman, 1968). Goodman, N. Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. New York: Bobbs-Merill.
(Goldin-Meadow and Beilock, 2010). Goldin-Meadow, S. and Beilock, S.L. “Action’s Influence On Thought: The Case of Gesture.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 5: 664–674. Available online at URL = <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745691610388764>.
(Goldschmidt, 1991) Goldschmidt, G. “The Dialectics of Sketching.” Creativity Research Journal 4, 2: 123–143.
(Goldschmidt, 1992). Goldschmidt, G. “Serial Sketching: Visual Problem Solving in Designing.” Cybernetics and Systems: An International Journal 23, 2: 191–219.
(Goldschmidt, 2017). Goldschmidt, G. “Manual Sketching: Why is it Still Relevant?” In (Ammon and Capdevila-Werning, 2017: pp. 82–83).
(Graves, 1977). Graves, M. “The Necessity for Drawing: Tangible Speculation.” Architectural Design. Pp. 384–394.
(Güss, Ahmed, and Dörner, 2021). Güss, C. D., Ahmed, S. and Dörner, D. “From da Vinci’s Flying Machines to a Theory of the Creative Process.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 16, 6: 1184–1197. Available online at URL = <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1745691620966790>.
(Haarmann, 2019). Haarmann, A. Artistic Research: Eine Epistemologische Ästhetik. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.
(Hanna and Paans, 2020). Hanna, R. and Paans, O. “This is the Way the World Ends: A Philosophy of Civilization Since 1900, and A Philosophy of the Future.” Cosmos & History 16, 2: 1-53. Available online at URL = <https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/865>.
(Harlanda and Craibb, 2016). Harlanda, R. and Craibb, D. “Graphicality: Why is There Not Such a Word? In P. Lloyd and E. Bohemia (eds.), Proceedings of DRS2016: Design + Research + Society – Future-Focused Thinking. Available online at URL = <https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs-conference-papers/drs2016/researchpapers/30/>.
(Hasenhütl, 2009). Hasenhütl, G. “Zeichnerisches Wissen.” In D. Gethmann and S. Hauser (eds.), Kulturtechnik Entwerfen: Praktiken, Konzepte und Medien in Architektur und Design Science. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag. Pp. 341–358.
(Hasenhütl, 2010). Hasenhütl, G. “Hypothesen beim Entwerfen.” In C. Mareis, G. Joost, K. Kimpel (eds.), Entwerfen, Wissen, Produzieren: Designforschung im Anwendungskontext. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag. Pp. 101-119.
(Have and Van Den Toren, 2012). Have, R. and Van Den Toren, M. “The Role of Hand Drawing in Basic Design Education in the Digital Age.” Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering and Mathematics, EMNA 2012. Pp. 72–80.
(Hay, 1985). Hay, J. “Surface and the Chinese Painter; The Discovery of Surface.”Archives of Asian Art 38: 95–123.
(Hoffmann, 2020). Hoffmann, A. Sketching as Design Thinking. London: Routledge.
(Ingold, 2007). Ingold, T. Lines: A Brief History. London: Routledge.
(Jullien, 1999). Jullien, F. The Propensity of Things: Towards a History of Efficacy in China. New York: Zone Books.
(Jullien, 2012). Jullien, F. The Great Image Has No Form, or On the Nonobject Through Painting. Trans. J.M. Todd. Chicago Il: Univ. of Chicago Press.
(Jullien, 2016) Jullien, F. The Philosophy of Living. Trans. M. Richardson and K. Fijalkowski. London: Seagull Books.
(Kang and Tversky, 2016). Kang, S. and Tversky, B. “From Hands to Minds: Gestures Promote Understanding.” Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 14. Available online at URL = <https://cognitiveresearchjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41235-016-0004-9>.
(Kant, 1790/2009). Kant, I. Critique of the Power of Judgment. Trans. P. Guyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1790).
(Kantrowitz, Brew, and Fava, 2011). A.Kantrowitz, A. Brew and M. Fava (eds.), Thinking Through Drawing: Practice Into Knowledge. New York: Columbia University,
(Knorr-Cetina, 2006). Knorr-Cetina, K. “Objectual Practice.” In T.R. Schatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina, and E. von Savigny (eds.), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge. Pp. 175–188.
(Koffka, 1936). Koffka, K. Principles of Gestalt Psychology. London: Kegan Paul.
(Krämer, Kogge, and Grube, 2016). Krämer, S., Kogge, W. and Grube, G. (eds.), Spur: Spurenlesen als Orienterungstechnik und Wissenskunst. Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2016.
(Krämer, 2015). Krämer, S. “Sprache–Stimme–Schrift: Sieben Gedanken über Performativität als Medialität.” In U. Wirth (ed.), Performanz: Zwischen Sprachphilosophie und Kulturwissenschaften. Berlin: Suhrkamp. Pp. 323–347.
(Krämer, 2016). Krämer, S. (2016). Figuration, Anschauung, Erkenntnis: Grundlinien einer Diagrammatologie. Berlin: Suhrkamp.
(Krämer, 2009). Krämer, S. “Operative Bildlichkeit: Von der Grammatologie zu einer “Diagrammatologie”? Reflexionen über erkennendes Sehen.” In M. Heßler and D. Mersch (eds.). Logik des Bildlichen: Zur Kritik der ikonischen Vernunft. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag. Pp. 94–123.
(Langer, 1953). Langer, S.K. Feeling and Form: A New Theory of Art. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
(Latour, 1986). Latour, B. “Visualisation and Cognition: Drawing Things Together.” In
H. Kuklick (ed.), Knowledge and Society Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present. Evanston IL: Northwestern Univ./Jai Press. Pp. 1-40.
(List, 2009). List, E. “Die Kreativität des Lebendigen und die Entstehung des Neuen.” In
D. Gethmann and S. Hauser (eds.), Kulturtechnik Entwerfen: Praktiken, Konzepte und Medien in Architektur und Design Science. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag. Pp. 319–332.
(Luce. 2009). Luce, K. Revolutions in Parallel: The Rise and Fall of Drawing in Architectural Design. PhD thesis. Ann Arbor MI: Univ. of Michigan.
(Maas, 2019). Maas, R. “Die Diaphane Struktur als Bildliches and Bauliches Urprinzip.” In U. Kuch (ed.), Das Diaphane: Architektur und ihre Bildlichkeit. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag. Pp. 65–67.
(McGuirk, 2008). McGuirk, T. “Knowing by Hand: Embodied Knowledge in Higher Education in the Disciplines of Arts and Design.” Proceedings of the 11th ISSEI conference, Language and the Scientific Imagination. (No page numbers.)
(McLaughlin, 2014). McLaughlin, K. Poetic Force: Poetry After Kant. Stanford CA: Stanford Univ. Press.
(Michel, 2005). Michel, R. (ed.) Forschungslandschaften im Umfeld des Designs. Zürich: SDN/HGK Hochschüle.
(Mitchell, 1984). Mitchell, W.J.T. “What is an Image?” New Literary History 15: 503-537.
(Mittelberg, Schmitz, and Groninger, 2017). Mittelberg, I., Schmitz, T., and Groninger, H. “Operative Manufacts: Gestures as Embodied Sketches in the Early Design Process.” In (Ammon and Capdevila-Werning, 2017: pp. 99–132).
(Nigianni, 2007) Nigianni, B. “Architecture as Image-Space-Text.” In (Frascari, Hale and Starkey, 2007: pp. 253–260).
(Paans, 2020). Paans, O. “Opening Up Towards the Non-Conceptual: From Kantian Judgment to Creative Oscillation.” Contemporary Studies in Kantian Philosophy 5: 116–131. Available online at URL = <https://www.cckp.space/single-post/2020/06/15/CSKP5-2020-Opening-Up-Towards-the-Non-Conceptual-From-Kantian-Judgment-to-Creative-Oscillation>.
(Paans, 2023). Paans, O. Kant’s Cognitive Gradualism: Reflection and Experience. Contemporary Studies in Kantian Philosophy 8: 102–121. Available online at URL = <https://www.cckp.space/single-post/cskp-8-2023-otto-paans-kant-s-cognitive-gradualism-102-121>.
(Paans, 2024a). Paans, O. “Within the Space of Drawing: Lines and the Locus of Creation in Architectural Design.” Journal of Research in Philosophy and History 7, 1: 36–69. Also available online in preview HERE.
(Paans, 2024b). Paans. O. “Handscapes: Gestures as Agents of Change and Mimetic Awareness.” Dimensions: Journal of Architectural Knowledge. Forthcoming.
(Paans, 2024c). Paans, O. “Nebula Rasa: The Diaphanous as Generative Stimulus in Architectural Design.” Arts and Communication. 13 February. Available online at URL = <https://accscience.com/journal/AC/articles/online_first/1233>.
(Paans and Pasel, 2018). Paans, O. and Pasel, R. “Drawing as Notational Thinking in Architectural Design.” In C. Storni, K. Leahy, M. McMahon, P. Lloyd, and E. Bohemia (eds.), Design as a Catalyst for Change—DRS International Conference 2018. Vol. 4: 1474–1485. Available online at URL = <https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs-conference-papers/drs2018/researchpapers/111/>.
(Paans and Pasel, 2020). Paans, O. and Pasel, R. “The Simulative Stance: An Essay on Architectural Design as Epistemic Enactment.” In R.L.Christensen, E. Drach, L. Gasperoni, D. Hallama, A. Hougaard, R. Liptau (eds.), Artefakte des Entwerfens. Skizzieren, Zeichnen, Skripten, Modellieren. Berlin: Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin. Pp. 58–74.
(Paans, Pasel, and Ehlen, 2019). Paans, O., Pasel, R., and Ehlen, B. “Architectural Representation, the Controlled Future and Spatial Practice.” In A. Tofte, M. Rönn, and E. Wergeland (eds.), Proceedings Series 2019-1: Reflecting Histories and Directing Futures. The Nordic Academic Press of Architectural Research (NAF/NAAR). Pp. 203–228.
(Pallasmaa, 2009). Pallasmaa, J. The Thinking Hand: Existential and Embodied Wisdom in Architecture. Chichester UK: John Wiley & Sons.
(Pallasmaa, 2011). Pallasmaa, J. The Embodied Image: Imagination and Imagery in Architecture. Chichester UK: John Wiley & Sons.
(Pallasmaa, 2012). Pallasmaa, J. The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses. Chichester UK: John Wiley & Sons.
(Palmboom, 2020). Palmboom, F. “Redrawing the Map—Oscillating Between Resemblance and Alienation.” Oase: Journal for Architecture 107: 35–37.
(Peréz-Goméz, 2007). Peréz-Goméz, A. “Questions of Representation: The Poetic Origin of Architecture.” In (Frascari, Hale and Starkey, 2007: pp. 11–22).
(Peréz-Goméz, 2016). Peréz-Goméz, A. Untimely Meditations. Selected Essays on Architecture. Architectural Philosophy and Hermeneutics. Vol. 2. Montreal: Rightangle Publishers.
(Polanyi, 2009) Polanyi, M. The Tacit Dimension. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
(Pombo and Magalhães, 2006). Pombo, F. and Magalhães, G. “Drawing in the Project: Image and Object.” In K. Friedman, T. Love, E. Côrte-Real, and C. Rust (eds.), Wonderground—DRS International Conference 2006. Design Research Society. (No page numbering.)
(Purcell and Gero, 1998). Purcell, A.T. and Gero, J.S. “Drawings and the Design Process. Design Studies 19: 389–430.
(Schön, 1983). Schön, D. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.
(Schütze, Sachse, and Römer, 2003). Schütze, M., Sachse, P. and Römer, A. “Support Value of Sketching in the Design Process.” Research in Engineering Design 14: 89–97. Available online at URL = <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00163-002-0028-7>.
(Sheets-Johnstone, 2013). Sheets-Johnstone, M. “Bodily Resonance.” In H. de Preester (ed.), Moving Imagination: Explorations of gesture and inner movement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 19–36.
(Suwa and Tversky, 2003). Suwa, M. and Tversky, B. “Constructive Perception: A Metacognitive Skill for Coordination and Perception.” Proceedings of the Annual Meetings of the Cognitive Science Society 25: 1140–1145.
(Taura and Nagai, 2013). Taura, T. and Nagai, Concept Generation for Design Creativity: A Systematized Theory and Methodology. London: Springer.
(Tversky, 2011). Tversky, B. “Visualizing Thought.” Topics in Cognitive Science 3: 499–535.
(Tversky and Hand, 2009). Tversky, B. and Martin Hard, B. “Embodied and Disembodied Cognition: Spatial Perspective-Taking.” Cognition 110: 124–129.
(Ursprung, 2016). Ursprung, P. “ ‘Die mensliche Arbeit, die in den Dingen steckt’: Peter Zumthors Werkzeichnungen ende der 1980er Jahren.” In T.H. Schmitz, R. Häußling, C. Mareis, and H. Groninger (eds.), Manifestationen im Entwurf: Design—Architektur— Ingenieurwesen. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag. Pp. 115–128.
(Van Den Berghe, 2013). Van Den Berghe, J. “Architectural Drawing as Verb, Not as Noun—Extending the Concept of Chronological Drawing and X-ray Drawing.” In J. Verbeke and B. Pak (eds.), Knowing (by) Designing: Proceedings of the Conference Knowing (by) Designing at LUCA, Sint-Lucas School of Architecture, Brussels, 22-23 May 2013. Brussels/Leuven: LUCA School of Architecture. Pp. 665-674.
(Vangrunderbeek, 2018). Vangrunderbeek, D. “On Connecting Form: Explorations of a Drawing Method.” In C. Storni, K. Leahy, M. McMahon, P. Lloyd, and E. Bohemia (eds.), Design as a Catalyst for Change—DRS International Conference 2018, 25-28 June, Limerick, Ireland. Available online at URL = <https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs-conference-papers/drs2018/researchpapers/121/>.
(Whyte and Ewenstein, 2010). Whyte, J. and Ewenstein, B. “Wissenspraktiken im Design: Die Rolle Visueller Repräsentationen als »epistemische Objekte.” In C. Mareis, G. Joost, and K. Kimpel (eds.), Entwerfen, Wissen, Produzieren: Designforschung im Anwendungskontext. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag. Pp. 47–80.
(Yaneva. 2009). Yaneva, A. “Making the Social Hold: Towards an Actor-Network Theory of Design.” Design and Culture 1, 3: 273–288. Available online at URL = <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17547075.2009.11643291>.
Against Professional Philosophy is a sub-project of the online mega-project Philosophy Without Borders, which is home-based on Patreon here.
Please consider becoming a patron!
