ABSTRACT
The general public refer to a number of objects and activities as design. As a result, the word has become watered down to the point where it has lost its specialized meaning in the design professions. Even within current architectural usage, the meaning of the term is not as obvious as it may seem. In Words and Buildings (2000), Forty devotes six pages to the history and explanation of the term within the architectural lexicon. Forty notes that the use of the term did not appear until the seventeenth century, or relatively recently in the history of architectural discourse. At first it simply meant “drawing,” or “composition.” It was a controversial appearance, as it marked a split between the “work of the mind” and the “work of the hands.” The architect was no longer the “Master Builder.” Design became a separate intellectual and liberal pursuit. Interestingly, the earlier conjoining of design and construction may be making a comeback with the increasing use of CAD/CAM and integrated design practice. What is old is new again. What we now understand as the activity of architectural “design” may need to be reevaluated as architectural design once again becomes merged with engineering and construction design. We are returning to a pre-seventeenth-century state where it is difficult to draw a distinction between the “work of the mind” and the “work of the hands.” The difference this time around is that the hands are robotic.
