Ok so I’ve been thinking about the lecture we had this past Wednesday and I have a few statements/questions.
First of, just so I know I have this right: Syntactic is the pieces to the whole. Semantic is the meaning and pragmatic is the purpose. Right?
Well it seems to me that, aside from projects we get in the first year of studio, people generally have an idea of the purpose of what they will be designing. Even if it is something made out of need, like the hammer example, you still know that you need something to put the nail through the wood. So wouldn’t that mess with the purely syntactical thought process?
Also, the examples of the people who focused purely on syntactic or semantic thought are void in my opinion. What they created might be “art” in some people’s eyes, but there is no purpose to these creations. Is it right to be thinking of what we are designing as art when there are people that will be utilizing and/or interacting with our designs?
I’ve always thought that something is designed well when it interacts seamlessly with its environment. That extends to people, the physical world, the human form... I think putting these three ways of thought, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic, in a linear order is arbitrary. All three of these things should be weighed when designing, who’s to say what goes first.
