Aesthetic design: Dialogue and learning. A case study of landscape architecture

AI & Soc (1995) 9:273-285 9 1995 Springer-VerlagLondon Limited AI ~ SOCII~'rY Open Forum Aesthetic Design: Dialogue and Learning. A Case Study of Landscape Architecture Satinder E Gill Department of Sociology, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK Abstract: In this paper the concept of knowledge is seen as embodying dialogue and learning in a shared practice. Sharing a practice involves sharing representations of practice. This necessitates the sharing of experiential knowledge at various levels and in various forms. It is proposed that participatory design can therefore be seen as consisting in dialogue and learning for the development of future practices and representations. The discussion in this paper is situated within the domain of landscape architecture. A study is made of their co-operative practices, which are evolved, in order to show the need for participatory embodied activity (whether expressed verbally or physically) in sharing practical knowledge (e.g. of aesthetic judgement). Keywords: Aesthetic judgement; Aesthetic design; Dialogue; Distributed apprenticeship; Embodied knowledge; Learning; Practice; Participation; Practical knowledge Introduction The case of design practice of a group of landscape architects 1, is explored to reveal the nature of particular co-operative design practices. Within the field of Participatory Design (PD) much discussion is concerned with fundamental issues such as democracy (cf. Ehn, 1988; Cooley, 1987), engaged situated activity (Suchman, 1987, Hughes et al. in press), and dialectics of co-operative design and co-operative analysis (Mogensen, 1995), in the participatory construction of future practices. In reflecting upon the situation of design practice in landscape architecture, this paper discusses and relates issues arising from the study which could add another dimension to these discussions and experiences, and are related to them. It discusses from a human centred perspective (Gill, 1996; Cooley, 1987) participation in design, and how in situations where design is distributed in its practice across geographical distance (landscape architecture 274 Open Forum project), or faces a problem due to knowledge difference amongst the participants involved (Gill, 1995), how breakdown situations are resolved. The paper proposes that this occurs when the representations of knowledge are not understood, and seeks to show the significance of embodied experiential knowledge in the sharing of knowledge. The approach is based upon my PhD work [of multi-media design study), and considers how representations of practical knowledge (e.g. of aesthetic judgement) can be shared. Participation is seen as embodying dialogue and learning in a shared practice, Dialogue and learning requires trust and empathy whereby value (for example, aesthetic value) is added to the knowledge of participants from their dialogue. The significance of the aspects of trust and empathy for the transfer of knowledge will become evident in the case study presented below. Participatory design can therefore be described as consisting in dialogue and learning for the development of future practices. The dimension of the aesthetic 2 is becoming recognised as an increasingly significant value in design. In the visual design domain of landscape architecture aesthetic value becomes of great significance in the conception, crafting and selling of proposed changes in the landscape. Dialogue is defined herein not solely as verbal or written communication but as involving body language and the relationship of the body to the physical (e.g. tool based) environment. The latter becomes most pertinent in a domain which is visual and physical such as that of landscape architecture. The firm of landscape architects discussed in this paper is becoming increasingly distributed in its skill base. It is not difficult to distribute information, but it is a different matter to share distributed knowledge. Sharing knowledge embodies [I use this deliberately] sharing practices. Likewise, the sharing of aesthetic value is a shared practice (Johannessen, 1981). There is a need to get a deeper understanding of the practice of aesthetic production and the sharing of knowledge in order to understand how the sharing of aesthetic value and knowledge may successfully take place across distributed networks of practice) What happens when the particular practice is not shared? It is here that participatory design faces the challenge to develop means by which knowledge and aesthetic value may be shared across a virtually distributed network of knowledge bases (communities of practices), by means of multi-media communications technology. We explore, in theoretical terms, the possibilities for achieving this. Expertise and Representation of Professional Knowledge. The ability to participate in design, i.e. creating out of the past and the present, the future use situation in which one will be, requires the ability to engage one's own experience with other participants in the dialogue. Such dialogue involves learning whereby all the participants transfer and acquire knowledge from each other. Central to this learning is the process of acquiring/absorbing an understanding of the representations of knowledges and practices. By representation, I mean language which may be verbal, bodily, of interaction with a physical material world (tools, e.g. pens, light tables, etc.), and [construction of the] physical (e.g. colour, maps, Open Forum 275 sketches, masterplan sketches, masterplans, plans, functional descriptive sketches, photographs, written documents, etc.). Representation defines both content and context. Sharing practice involves learning and creating shared representations. This perspective questions the traditional approach to knowledge which considers it as an entity which can be handed down, possessed, passed on, given (Gill, t995; Jordan, 1995). For example, a teacher will give the knowledge to a student. The traditional view would not see that the student has knowledge too and that learning involves the teacher acquiring an understanding of the student's needs (Good, 1995). The examples from landscape architecture discussed in this paper reveal the significance of experiential knowledge for successful dialogue, learning and knowledge formation in participatory design. Knowledge formation involves arriving at agreements in knowledge which, herein, includes new group knowledge or a design decision, or the forming of an aesthetic view. Aesthetic Design SGS Environment SGS Environment is an organisation of environmental scientists and landscape architects which consists of eight branches. It is a subsidiary of a multinational organisation. The project has focused primarily on the Kendal branch (situated in the Lake district in the North West of England), which currently consists of three landscape architects (Wally, Ken, Liz A), an ecologist (Stewart), a technical expert (Phil), and two secretaries (Rachel and Liz R). Some of the examples which will be presented below also involve a fourth architect (Peter C) who has recently left the organisation. The other branch which is discussed herein is situated in Colwyn Bay on the Welsh Coast. There are only two landscape architects in Colwyn Bay. The two branches work closely to support each other. Ken and Wally often go down there to supervise projects, and the main architect there, Peter S, sometimes comes up to Kendal. Recently SGS Environment has begun to identity their various skill bases and to describe themselves as a distributed organisation 4. On the one hand, they have been forced into difficulties of communicating and working with each other from different offices because of downsizing in the organisation. They see the communications technology (e.g. email, sending visual materials or seeing visual materials on shared screens), however, as offering them the opportunity to reshape themselves in order to survive the changes. In addition, they are discovering new possibilities for transferring knowledge. They will be producing this information in both visual and in written forms. In this paper, the distributed nature of the organisational practices raises the issue of what makes for a shared aesthetic view. This is explored further below. Landscape Architecture Landscape architectural practice takes two forms, of planning and design. Landscape design involves the creation of a master plan and/or contract work on the site. It is a creative design process, involving getting things built and supervising the building 276 Open Forum process. Designs must be adapted to the future use of the site and to the system of maintenance responsible for its care. A master plan presents the picture the architect wishes to reveal. It states what the landscape will look like. A sketch master plan however gives an idea or proposal for how the landscape could look. The former is a product for a client. The latter is for further development by another partner or as part of the initial communication with the client to gain their interest in taking on the architect. Before either can be produced, the architect undertakes sketching which, in the initial phase, is a private experience of the building of ideas and reflections and the impressions of possibilities. In between these stages a number of communicative sketches, drawings and discussions over drawings (often involving other architects drawing over an architect's drawings) are undertaken. The intermediate phase is an interactive experience. We will see a brief sketch of these activities in the example below of the architects designing a car park for a paper factory. Landscape planning is also strategic work. It involves landscape assessment, that is, assessing the quality and character of landscapes. This is broad in its scope. It deals for example, with assessing the character of a site for a local authority for, say, developing a strategy for the development of an area e.g. assessing the safety of a stretch of road for drivers. Such developments are specific. Assessment work is required for public enquiries, e.g. environmental statements for public commissions. The architects have to deal with a particular development. One can be employed either for or against the development in question to provide professional evidence. Both written materials and drawings have to be submitted. Although the architects in the Kendal branch are identified as having specialisms in design or planning 5, they all pool in on both planning and design projects. This is also illustrated in the car park project. All the architects are skilled in the legal presentation of material which is critical in the event of any changes or misunderstandings on the part of a client or contractor. The Aesthetic View: A Shared Practice In this case, we will investigate the formation/construction of an aesthetic view. This involves the process by which this is learnt, use of techniques to express it (e.g stylised drawing), and how it is negotiated (for example, in drawing and colouring a plan, dark green colour can be used to denote old trees/shrubs, and light green for new ones). It is shown that aesthetics is fundamentally a shared activity and is meaningful to those involved in the various communities of practice of the particular aesthetics. It is continuously negotiated and evolves in this engagement. Although it will not be developed in this paper 6, the use of computer-based technology as a medium of aesthetic production within landscape architecture brings to light a wider general development in the cultural aesthetic. The design of landscapes involves many actors in different communities of aesthetic practices with whom the landscape architects need to relate their aesthetics. A brief example of this is the following: A senior landscape architect, Liz, is meeting with the client to discuss design plans that she has developed based upon previous discussion with the client. These are to be put forward for planning permission to the regional authorities. The design plans are for converting a disused quarry area into a nature site (which will involve protected woodland) and as a climbing site. The clients Open Forum 277 have various ideas of their own which influence the change of the design proposals. These were embedded in the dialogue but were spelt out for me at the end of the meeting, by the client. For example, he spoke of the aesthetic pleasure of silence: "even if you have twenty people on an outing you don't feel it, but if a motorcyclist comes then the whole mood is destroyed and the pleasure is ruined and you leave". Hence they wanted to make it impossible for motorcycles to enter the area. They did not want waste bins to be placed in the woods as this would encourage litter. They did not want sign posts to indicate beauty spots as this would encourage people to erode the area and to crowd in particular spots, which, if they are near the quarry climbing face, would also be dangerous. The landscape architects are sometimes constrained by the taste of their client (if it does not agree with their own, that is) and also, although this has not been brought out in the above example, financial considerations. They are however completely free to release their personal aesthetics, in constructing an alternative group aesthetic view, when they are involved in a creative competition situation. For example, they are currently 7 putting forward a "concept" for Kendal which suggests that the river be the focal point for the signature of Kendal. Teamwork From the moment a project is advertised for bids, or Kendal is approached by bidding partners to be in on their project, whether they are architects or contractors, the key persons who receive the information, or rather act upon it, are the two senior architects, Wally and Ken, also the director and the senior manager. In discussion, they decide upon who should form the design team, basing their judgements upon a variety of factors such as technical skill, previous experience of this kind of project, and availability. The latter will depend on the importance of the new project. If it is considered important enough, then people will be asked to shift their plans. Invariably everyone ends up being involved in a project at some time of its duration. This is illustrated in the example below of the design of a car park. No one person is the expert problem solver, so to speak. This example sketches how a project can be constituted by many aesthetics of sketches, drawings, CAD drawings, etc. which are aligned (Latour, 1990) in order for the coherence 8 of the whole process and its success. It is proposed that their alignment is possible because they have been shared in previous experiences of working together, and have become familiar over time in reading each other's representations. The example below is of the design of a car park on the north west coast of Cumbria, for a paper factory, which shall be termed Firm A. Example. Designing a Car Park - Teamworking Ken is the project leader. Liz has taken over on the project from Peter C (who recently left the firm) as the senior landscape architect on the project. This example shows the activity of architects drawing over each others' drawings, and constructing drawings based on each others'. I shall present just a brief except here of three different stages in a drawing process. Any project is invariably spread out over time, 278 Open Forum but not in any predetermined course. It depends for example, on time, money, other projects, and client's responses to proposed designs, etc. Liz makes some initial sketches for the car park at the end of October (1995). She has been asked to do so by Wally and Ken. She is briefed on the project by Ken [so is Wally (the director)]. Ken suggests that she gets a digitised layout of the car park area from Phil. She meets Phil to sort this out. In the meantime she starts on her sketching. Wally, subsequently draws upon her sketches to produce drawings which are sent to the owners of the paper factory (Firm A) for initial discussions on the practical design problems. He takes on this task as Liz has other commitments. These drawings are discussed a week later at Firm A by Ken, Liz, Phil T (Firm A), Ian (quantity surveyor), Keith (civil engineer). The meeting involves them going with the client out on site. This physical dimension of being in the environment they are going to reshape is essential. They always take photographs to help them recall. Three days later Phil has constructed a plan on the CAD based on sketches given to him by Ken and Wally, which they have made on the basis of the feedback from the meeting at Firm A. At the end of that day, Wally is looking over his drawing and is drawing on top of it making amendments which deal with: the need to make certain aspects "look pretty"; functionality- e.g. angles of car parking slots; spacing of the layout; number of spaces that would be lost as foot passage ways are indicated, for leaving the car park to get to the covered footpath. Ken and Liz are also present. On the following day, Phil is working from Wally's sketches to produce a digital map. Wally describes the digital plans as being useful for discussion and as a product, but they are not "aesthetically pleasing". Ken comes down in the morning to discuss reshaping one end of the car park (the extension) to allow cars to move round the bend more safely. He draws a sketch which Phil then works from. There is much interpretation going on here by various "actors" of different features of the car park both in terms of drawings, sketches, and in relation'to the physical experience of the landscape. 9 In terms of physical movement, the drawings are taking place in various parts of the building. When Wally is drawing on top of Phil's plans, he is talking. The sketching is part of the discourse, of the reflection out loud about the design problem. It is, in this case, an interactive process. In this situation they are sitting and standing close to each other and other people may come in, e.g. Liz and Ken intervene and make additional comments whilst Wally is thinking over Phil's plan, although Wally is the main person drawing with the coloured pencils. The architects are not interpreting the material in isolation when they are first handling it. In talking aloud and moving pens over paper, they enable the other person(s) to see how they are conceiving. This, it is suggested enables one person to adapt upon another person' s view, producing a coherent development of the design. In this architectural practice, there is a flexibility or fluidity of teams and hierarchy. Here, the 'director' joins in at any level of the design process (even photocopying) for views. This may be more than just a feature of a medium sized organisation, but rather a feature of this professional practice. The director is also an 'expert' in the field. In general, and as illustrated in the examples here, the location/identity of expertise varies with any job (task). This is often because there are a number of projects going on at any time, and someone who was working on, say, a master plan sketch, is too busy on another project to work on the next phase of this one. Open Forum 279 The example of the car park design indicates that in order for such working practice to be successful, it may not be sufficient to have the 'propositional' skills, i.e. the domain specific knowledge, of the job, but that it may be necessary that one has an understanding of the person whose work one is now required to interpret in order to take it further. Where one cannot directly talk or communicate with the materials e.g. drawings in the same physical space, the architect has to try to recall the personality behind a design, how they work, in order to try and place themselves inside that person's head. For example, in one project, Ali 1~ (a landscape architect) is trying to place herself inside Peter's head (a senior landscape architect) to see the origin of his sketch in order to take his design further at the practical construction level. This case is particularly interesting. Ali is drawing on her memory of Peter who left the firm a few months ago. Her recollection of his way of seeing things has to move from the dimension of design (conception) to the process of building (construction). The interpretation involves a shift in levels, which need to accord with Peter's vision, made possible if she can enter that vision and merge her own person with it (Ali). The construction drawings need to look to the builder and to the client as part of the original design. 11 Example. The A5 Project - 'Distributed Participatory Design: A paradox?' Communication of Knowledge in Distributed Space [the Problem of Apprenticeship) This example gives us an insight into the kinds of problems of participating in design practice which arise when working across distances. The Kendal branch works well with two other branches, where the senior architects have both spent some years working with the Kendal group. In the following example, of working with a Welsh branch, there is a situation of knowledge discrepancy where one of the architects 'lacks experience'. It is proposed that this involves a lack of experience of the aesthetic view shared by the other architects in Kendal. The example concerns a 50 mile stretch o f the A5 in Wales, from Llanygai to Chirk. The landscape architects and ecologists, in conjunction with a firm of traffic engineers, are producing an overall strategy for the route to take on board environmental constraints and opportunities for minor improvements to road safety, for example, to handle accident blackspots. This may involve carrying out localised widening work in areas where there is a particular accident blackspot. Alternatively, they may need to try to reduce traffic speed to improve dangerous bends without widening the road. This is necessary, particularly in sensitive areas where the road follows a meandering valley that is heavily wooded. They would do this using traffic control measures such as signing to indicate that the speed has to be reduced which would be complemented by the use of different colours, and textured strips on the road to warn motorists of imminent danger 12. The Problem This work is being carried out in two offices, in Colwyn Bay (on the Welsh Coast) and in Kendal (in the North-West of England). Peter S and Richard in Colwyn Bay 280 Open Forum have direct access to the site and are primarily involved in the day to day process of the project in conjunction with ecologists Jill (head ecologist), and her associate, Paul who is involved in the day-to-day aspects of the job. There are a number of actors. In Kendal, one of the senior architects, Ken, is managing the project (NB. Wally is the official manager but due to time constraints, he has passed over the control of the project to Ken. This often happens, for example, as in the case of the car park project). Between them they have the task of producing a package of their proposals consisting of a written document and of drawings, for the Welsh Office. The deadline was January. In December, Ken sends down a set of drawings which are very 'similar' to the ones that Peter S and Richard have to produce. He also sends down a detailed information package about what they need to do. When the drawings come back in January Ken discovers a lot of inaccuracies and problems in graphical constraints. As a result they have to recolour (not redraw) 20+ plans. They do this by getting Peter S and Richard to come to Kendal. This problem is one of doing a complex job in two offices, and the inability to oversee things on a day to day basis and pick up the mistakes before they are too late. It is also a problem of tack of hands-on apprenticeship. Ken cannot be there to supervise Peter's work. The procedure they currently practice is to initially produce base negatives before colouring. Colwyn Bay initially sent these negatives to Kendal in December which mostly appeared to be fine. Much of the information on the drawings, however, was not on the negatives so errors were only identified after the drawings were coloured e.g. information of designated areas. There were other errors and they have been put down to factors such as lack of time, but in this example, the focus will be on colours. Ken had expected Peter to interpret the information he had sent and select the correct colours. However, the problem was Peter's 'inexperience' (ref. discussion with Ken). In retrospect, Ken feels that they should have actually coloured up one of the plans and given Peter a palette of colours. Ken had sent examples of similar work undertaken before. Yet the exemplars were in themselves not sufficient for Peter. It is proposed that the exemplar has to be such that one relates to the experience it embodies. If the exemplar lies outside o n e ' s experience, then it becomes propositional knowledge (cf. Josefson, 1987, Gill, 1988, 1995) which is either meaningless for the participant or cannot be interpreted or used by him/her in accordance to the background of understanding and practices against which it has been expressed (as in this case). Discussion This example raises a number of issues. In the case of the A5, it is clear that there is a need, quite an urgent need, to improve the communication of knowledge between distributed offices where there is a lack of expertise in one office. If drawings could be seen then errors which go unchecked due to distance could be caught in time and rectified. Certain aspects of the communication process will still be problematic and only when the drawing is shown will it be known that there is a problem - i.e. reference to the intermediate practice of initially producing negatives which are in black and white and which do not contain full detail, but indicate the kind of information which will be presented. What some form of a visual link will provide Open Forum 281 is a saving on errors and time lag in communicating between the offices in the final drawing phase (graphical representation of landscape features). The combination of emall and a visual link will enable corrective measures to be carried out more effectively. It will enable the apprenticeship of Peter. Aesthetic Production: Sharing the Aesthetics of Colour For the Kendal architects, the colouring of the drawings was critical with respect to the final aesthetic effect 13. It is interesting to note that their scientific colleagues did not consider their amendments to be necessary nor did they see the need to alter the drawings in any significant way. However, the architects at Kendal were adamant about the colour scheme. There is a huge contrast between the drawings produced at Colwyn Bay and those produced at Kendal. The landscape architects are particular about their sense of colour and how colours work together. 14 Certainly, the use of visual communications will greatly facilitate the need to communicate this sense of relationships between colours. The choice of colours may be 'arbitrary' in that they are intuitively selected, but they have a clear system that works. This is in marked contrast to the Colwyn Bay junior architect who followed a key of colours for features, working to an instruction. It is suggested that there is also an agreed idea, by the architects at Kendal, about the aesthetic effect of the maps upon the client, in having an immediate impact in a competitive bid. It would be useful to investigate how aesthetic value may be shared across space.15 What are the possible limits of visual communications technology? The limitations are set by the embodied nature of the aesthetic view. Until there is embodiment of knowledge, it cannot be acted upon in an agreed manner. Embodiment of the aesthetic view It is significant that in order for Peter to have an understanding of the colours, he needs to be brought to Kendal and engage in the activity of the selection and combination of colours which achieve a particular aesthetic effect (which is 'professional'). This aesthetic effect is a shared aesthetic view practised amongst the Kendal architects. It will be useful here to draw upon Johannessen's interpretation of Wittgenstein's work on aesthetics, that aesthetics is a learnt practice. Consider its language game as "a human activity, the existence of which presupposes common reactions, abilities and presuppositions...It is only in practice that it is possible to identify, refer to, react upon, intervene in, investigate, come to terms with, reflect upon, grasp, and be familiar with various aspect of the human reality {aesthetic} in a rule-governed manner". (Johannessen, 1981). Hence, the problem may not be one of 'experience' in the sense of skill, or the lack of experience, but one of sharing a particular aesthetic view which needs to be learnt. Hence apprenticeship, in this instance, is about the absorption of the making of aesthetic judgements which can only be achieved by being directly bodily engaged in the practice of arriving at them with others, or by seeing examples of others making them ("knowledge by familiarity", cf. Johannessen, 1981, Gill, 1995, Josefson, 1987). "An aesthetic judgement is essentially comparative in nature, and is bound to work with shared examples of individual 282 Open Forum works of art that are commonly understood in a particular way" (Johannessen, 1981). Although Johannessen is in this excerpt talking in the context of 'art work', the discussion is easily transposed onto aesthetic practices and production in landscape architecture. A critical point for this discussion, raised by Johannessen, is that beyond a concern with investigating the learning of making aesthetic judgements etc., is the "intersubjectivity of aesthetic experience, i.e. a question of finding the right description of the conditions for making and understanding various forms of aesthetic judgement". This is what the discussion in this paper, in proposing that aesthetics is experiential and embodied practice, is trying to begin to do. Distributed Design: Dilemmas for the Case of Apprenticeship in Aesthetic Production If one considers that aesthetic practice is a shared experiential practice, a distributed organisational setting as the one we have here, poses a problem for the idea of apprenticeship, which is being forced to shift from one shared physical space to distributed spaces. How can such apprenticeship be enabled? Current discussions upon distributed learning and technology are predominantly bound within the 'education' model which is inappropriate for domains which require the development of practical expertise (Goodyear & Steeples, 1993) in, say, the professions. However, alternatives are still bound by elements drawn from the education model such as 'formal academic' work and its evaluation becoming part of the professional practice. The case we face in our firm requires a framework which considers apprenticeship and a query into the form of dialogue to express practical knowledge which allows it to retain its practice. A traditional model of apprenticeship is based upon a demarcation between the expert and the apprentice, and performance by the learner only enters the public domain when he/she is skilled. In landscape architecture, apprenticeship takes place in the firm where the architect learns the particular set of practices and language of the group i.e. the various ways in which they communicate and negotiate information which is visual and textual, both amongst themselves and with other parties. This was evident in the example of designing a car park and in the A5 project, where in the latter, Peter and Richard were required to come to Kendal to see and be involved with the Kendal group, in colouring the maps so that they looked 'professional'. How can this be enabled over geographical distance by the assistance of technology? It is clear that communications multi-media technology (i.e. email and shared screens) may enable the learning process. It will allow for frequent exchange of both visual and textual discourse to reinforce the 'social contract' (cf. Goodyear et al. 1993) between the communities of practice by helping to clarify and ease the interpretation of information. The communications technology may also enable the sharing of 'informal professional knowledge' (cf. Goodyear et al, 1993) which otherwise cannot be expressed in textual form, in the form of instruction, or in an example of which the experience is not shared. Precisely what this sharing would constitute waits to be seen. It is suggested that the visual link will allow for the representation of aesthetics in a non-propositional form, i.e. that multi-media allows for ambiguity and interpretation without reduction into parts or definitions of knowledge, hence it allows for change in practices which evolve in the practice itself. Open Forum 283 Conclusion The current r e s o l u t i o n of the p r o b l e m o f distributed p a r t i c i p a t o r y design b y the architects is to bring Peter regularly to Kendal. T h e y do not w a n t such a situation to arise again. The e x a m p l e s show that without experience o f the practice o f the k n o w l e d g e one is trying to use, one will not be able to acquire it and apply it successfully. They suggest that in order to acquire an understanding o f the k n o w l e d g e , one needs to be able to have the m e a n s to participate in the d i a l o g u e e m b o d y i n g it. In the A5 road p r o j e c t the resolution to P e t e r ' s incorrect colouring o f the feature maps was to bring h i m to K e n d a l where he could be b o d i l y e n g a g e d in their colouring practice. In this way, he came s o m e w a y into absorbing their aesthetic view. This study emphasises the n e e d for p a r t i c i p a t o r y e m b o d i e d a c t i v i t y for d i a l o g u e and learning o f the representations of practice in order to participate in the d e s i g n of future situated practices ( k n o w l e d g e formation). Acknowledgements I w o u l d like to thank members o f SGS E n v i r o n m e n t for their support and c o m m e n t s on the draft of this paper. The architects (Wally Trustcott, Ken HaUiday, Liz Ashburn) and the ecologist (Stewart Lowther) gave me p o s i t i v e feedback. They also pointed out that their work is not simply about the aesthetic and there is much that is 'mundane' and stylised or legal (formal). I w o u l d also like to thank John Hughes, Rob Shields, L o u Armour, Sarah Franklin, and M o n i k a B u s c h e r for their encouraging comments on drafts o f the paper, and Preben M o g e n s e n for struggling through the very first draft and giving m e very useful feedback. F i n a l l y I w o u l d like to acknowledge the support o f the E S R C Cognitive Engineering P r o g r a m m e under which this research was funded. Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 This project on Landscape architecture, entitled 'Ethnography in the Aid of Aesthetic Production' is funded by the ESRC under the Cognitive Engineering Research Programme. The paper reflects my interpretation of aesthetics and design based on my field work in a firm of landscape architects. see Diffey (1995) for a discussion on the term aesthetic. Diffey's account encompasses the breadth of the term used in this paper. Although, it will not be explored in any depth here, (it will be considered in another paper forthcoming, Gill, 1977), it will be helpful to consider discussions being undertaken in the environmental discourse, such as the discussion by Urry (1997, forthcoming in P. McNaughton and J. Urry (1997)) on how 'the different ways of sensing are organised around the modalities of space and time" and construct 'nature'. This is pertinent to landscape architecture. ref. group design meeting of all the branches, held at Kendal, at which Preben Mogensen and myself (from Lancaster University) were present. Preben's expertise is in participatory design. It was at this meeting, held on February 22nd, that the organisation began to redefine itself as consisting in a distributed skill base. The relationship between the aesthetics of design and of planning is being developed in the forthcoming paper, Gill (1977), 'Dialogue, Knowledge and the Aesthetic Landscape: the case of landscape architecture'. This will be developed Gill (1997). 284 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Open Forum This has taken place and the company won the competition. It may be significant that their products were produced using a mixture of handwork and computer-based work, and the final output was a computerbased printout. In the presentation of the various competition entries held in the town for public viewing, it was striking how the look of their work was markedly different in nature from all the other entries, which were produced primarily using 'traditional' methods. This coherence involves an aesthetic coherence. See Scruton (1996) on aesthetics and coherence. If one wants to describe this in terms of actor networks the sketches which do not become mobiles are the private sketches which are for the person's own reflections in their creative process. The mutable mobiles are the sketches and drawings which pass hands in the design process. These are the sketches made by Liz that Wally uses to produce drawings, and in turn his drawings which, momentarily become immutable when they are presented to the client as a product for discussion, but become mutable again when they are reworked by Phil, and Phil' s digital plans which are reworked by Wally, and his sketching by Phil. This is an example of a process which could be seen as being coherent in its continuous alignment, despite the various personalities involved in its mutation [both amongst the landscape architects and between them and the client]. At the time of writing this paper, Ali was still with the Kendal branch. She is not mentioned in the introduction about current members as she has since left. In relation to the idea of coherence (referred to in footnote 7) is the principle of harmony (e.g. Smith, 1987). A re-occurring feature of landscape architecture is the need to show a theme which runs throughout the design and its various stages. It may be useful here to refer to Latour' s idea of'inscription' (1990) (signing using textured strip s in the road) and 'material strength' to provide a handle on this activity and its effect, to talk for example of the degree of the weight of the inscription in order to create the required activity. The architects constantly seek to guide our appreciation of their constructions. This involves guiding our behaviour through them. Their 'inscriptions' must not be obvious. We need to feel the unexpected surprise at discovering the landscape. This particular engagement in the landscape makes for our aesthetic experience and special aesthetic attitude (Carlson, 1993) of a disinterested character (Brady, 1996). Upon reading a draft of this paper, the director of the company remarked that colour is one of the most important aspects of the presentation of their ideas, hence it is given serious consideration. Within the practices of the visual, and in a similar vein to the particularity of 'what works' for colour, they are particular about the strokes of their curves and lines. The latter, however, is more an individual signature which needs to be understood in an agreed practice, hence the 'stylised' nature of drawings. see footnote 2. References Brady, E.S. (1996). Imagination, Aesthetic Experience and Nature. In Proceedings oftheXllllnternational Congress of Aesthetics. Carlson, A. (1993). Aesthetics and Engagement. In the British Journal of Aesthetics, 33 (3) Cooley, M.J.E. (1987). Architect or Bee? The Human Price of Technology. Hogarth: London Diffey, T.J. (1995). A Note on Some Meanings of the Term Aesthetic. In the British Journal of Aesthetics, 35 (1) Ehn, P. (1988). Work Oriented Design of Computer Artifacts. Stockholm: Arbetslivs centrum, Stockholm. Gill, KS. (1990). Summary of Human Centred Systems Research in Europe. SEAKE Centre, Brighton University: Brighton. Gill, K,S. (Ed.). (1996). Human Machine Symbiosis.Springer-Verlag: London. Gill, S.P. (1988). On Two AI Traditions. A1 & Society, 2 (4) Springer-Verlag. Gill, S.P. (1995). Dialogue and Tacit Knowledge for Knowledge Transfer. PhD Dissertation, University of Cambridge. Gill, S.P. (1996). Designing for Knowledge Transfer, In K.S.Gill (Ed.), Human Machine Symbiosis. Springer-Verlag: London. Goodyear, P. and Steeples, C. (1993). Computer-mediated communication in the professional development of workers in the advanced learning technologies industry. In Computer Mediated Education of Information Technology Professional and Advanced End-User. Barta, Eecleston, Hambusch (Eds). Amsterdam: North Holland. Johannessen, K.S. (1981). Language, Art and Aesthetic Practice. In Johannessen and Nordenstam (Eds.), Wittgenstein - Aesthetics and Transcendental Philosophy. Holder-Pichler-Temsky: Vienna. Jordan, B. (1995). Ethnographic Workplace Studies and CSCW. In Josefson, I. (1987). The Nurse as Engineer. AI & Society, 1:115-126. Laessoe, J. and Rasmussen, L. (1989). Human-Centred Methods. Reproset Press: Copenhagen. Open Forum 285 Latour, B. (1990). Drawing things together. In Lynch, Woolgar, (Eds.), Representation in Scientific Practice. Kluwer. McNaughton, P. and Urry, J. (1997). (forthcoming). Sensing Nature. In Contested Natures. Sage. Mogensen, P. (1995). Challenging Practice: An Approach to Cooperative Analysis Aarhus University. Aarhus. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Phsilosophy. Routledge and Kegan Paul. London Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. Doubleday: NY. Scruton, R. (1996). Judging Architecture. In Palmer and Dodson (Eds.) Design and Aesthetics: a Reader. Routledge. London. Hughes, J., Shapiro, D., Sharrock, W., Harper, R., and Randall, D. (in press). Ordering the skies: the sociology of coordinated work. Routledge. London. Smith, P.F. (1987). Architecture and the Principle of Harmony. RIBA. London. Suchman, L.A.(1987). Plans and Situated Actions: the Problems of Human Machine Communication. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical Investigations. Blackwell. Oxford. Wittgenstein, L. (1966). Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology and Religious Belief Blackwell. Oxford. Wittgenstein, L. (1977). Remarks on Colour. G.E.M. Anscombe (Ed.). Blackwell. Oxford. Correspondence and offprint requests to: Satinder P. Gill, Darwin College, Silver Street, Cambridge CB2 3EU, UK.