Design in the Open Sourbsp;era＞ [...] We are now eing a blurring of the boundaries between different paradigms，the advent of the open-sourbsp;and free software era，in whibsp;specialization gives way for the trans-disciplinary and for holistibsp;and ied approaches，and in whibsp;the Mephistophelean solitude of the artist and designer in the creative process bees an absp;of co-creation in an open and collaborative process.Design and the typing process of forms teabsp;us，in practice，how different challenges equate to different solutions，where there is no right or wrong methodology，but an attitude that casts doubt on the phenomena and on the relationship between problems，solutions，and texts.In naming“design，”we associate subsp;categories as fluidity，e，the passage from the vertibsp;to the diagonal，from top-down to bottom-up，from tent prote to open-sourbsp;sharing，dismination before identity-bad obssion； but also the stellations and openness of meanings，the added value provided by emotions as a plement to a purely rational world，the value of ambiguity and the wealth of nsory experiehe blurring between the real and the virtual，and the return to a fobsp;on the pre-rational state，where objebsp;may be en in relation to subjects.We may speak of relational objects，a sort of mature appendix to Winnicott’s transitional objects，as an“iween”spabsp;dynamically shaped by tensions of energy，in whibsp;a pure objebsp;is not designed-but also its relationship with the envirohe ur’s experiehe touchpoints of the rvice，a transformation process，and so on.Design takes on the burden of literally designing the iitial space that open a gateway for a new paradigm，a eme，a new way of thinking [...] In 1958，in eking archetypal forms from elementary industrial process，Enzo Mari designed for Dane a limited-edition tray called“putrella”or“beam.”Through a process of de-funalization and re-funalization in a different tting typical of the ready-made，the designer reud a of double-T beam，bending it at the ends to hint at the shape of a tray.The product challehe beois home and its objeiver，using a mi-procesd piece typical of the stru site.Likewi，it provides an ironic take on funality aance，precily by bending it at the ends.Like Barthes in the analysis of language，and like many other radical designers of his time，Mari us forms and types to challeheir rules of fun and manipulate their meanings：with the approach of a hacker，he prehends and emphasizes that vergence of teological factors that ehe produ of a type，and reprocess them together to struew meanings and affirm yet again a dynamic vision of the typing process of forms.
Design in the Open Sourbsp;era＞ [...] We are now eing a blurring of the boundaries between different paradigms，the advent of the open-sourbsp;and free software era，in whibsp;specialization gives way for the trans-disciplinary and for holistibsp;and ied approaches，and in whibsp;the Mephistophelean solitude of the artist and designer in the creative process bees an absp;of co-creation in an open and collaborative process.Design and the typing process of forms teabsp;us，in practice，how different challenges equate to different solutions，where there is no right or wrong methodology，but an attitude that casts doubt on the phenomena and on the relationship between problems，solutions，and texts.In naming“design，”we associate subsp;categories as fluidity，e，the passage from the vertibsp;to the diagonal，from top-down to bottom-up，from tent prote to open-sourbsp;sharing，dismination before identity-bad obssion； but also the stellations and openness of meanings，the added value provided by emotions as a plement to a purely rational world，the value of ambiguity and the wealth of nsory experiehe blurring between the real and the virtual，and the return to a fobsp;on the pre-rational state，where objebsp;may be en in relation to subjects.We may speak of relational objects，a sort of mature appendix to Winnicott’s transitional objects，as an“iween”spabsp;dynamically shaped by tensions of energy，in whibsp;a pure objebsp;is not designed-but also its relationship with the envirohe ur’s experiehe touchpoints of the rvice，a transformation process，and so on.Design takes on the burden of literally designing the iitial space that open a gateway for a new paradigm，a eme，a new way of thinking [...] In 1958，in eking archetypal forms from elementary industrial process，Enzo Mari designed for Dane a limited-edition tray called“putrella”or“beam.”Through a process of de-funalization and re-funalization in a different tting typical of the ready-made，the designer reud a of double-T beam，bending it at the ends to hint at the shape of a tray.The product challehe beois home and its objeiver，using a mi-procesd piece typical of the stru site.Likewi，it provides an ironic take on funality aance，precily by bending it at the ends.Like Barthes in the analysis of language，and like many other radical designers of his time，Mari us forms and types to challeheir rules of fun and manipulate their meanings：with the approach of a hacker，he prehends and emphasizes that vergence of teological factors that ehe produ of a type，and reprocess them together to struew meanings and affirm yet again a dynamic vision of the typing process of forms.