On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Michael P Mossey
<mpm@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
Richard O'Keefe wrote:
Design-by-negativity can *be* a way of being creative.
I've lost count of the number of times that I've been
explaining to someone why something can't be done, and
suddenly realised that one of the reasons was invalid
and seen how to do it.
The key is not whether you explore the design space
from a positive end or from a negative end, but whether
you *explore* it.
I think we using "positive" and "negative" in a bit of a different sense (which may be my fault for not explaining perfectly in the first post). There are both positive and negative *facts* about design. There are things you can do, and things you can't. These are facts. I'm referring more to a specific kind of process (a specific kind of exploration)---in my terms, "design by negation" means that you dominant activity in design in cutting away possibilities, and what's left (however awkward) is what you must build. I have done this by habit, but I would like to shift into a mode of design that is focused on construction rather than destruction---to view design as an opportunity to meet most goals by clever combining of facets.
Thanks,