The discussion up to this point has been interesting, but it also
demonstrates why we should put serious cautionary marks around the word
"canon."
The idea of a canon is problematic for three reasons.
First, a "canon" typically reflects a metaphysical, political, or
ideological vision about the subject. One needs a principle to guide
the selection of works, and the principle necessarily comes from one's
approach to the subject. So, we select (1) works by influential people,
or (2) works that express important ideas, or (3) works that have
significance in their historical context, or (4) works that demonstrate
an approach to a particular problem. Each of these is reasonable in
itself, but none, by itself, entirely satisfies our collective concerns
and interests. (Notice the similar problem with the "Good Design
Movement" at MOMA--what was canonized in the exhibitions at MOMA and
what was excluded.)
Second, the idea of a "canon" is problematic because we wonder who has
the authority to "canonize" a particular author or work. Who can
declare that a work is "classic" and deserving of inclusion. Does the
authority reside with an elite group or does it reside with the general
readership and time--"the work that survives the test of time"--or does
it reside with the person to whom the canon is directed (namely, the
students who are supposed to be shaped by the "canon")?
Third, the idea of a "canon" is problematic because of what is excluded.
Inevitably, whatever is excluded will, sooner or later, become a matter
of controversy. In literary studies, for example, the "canon" has been
overturned so that room could be found for women and minorities.
Overturning a canon is inevitable.
I do not raise these matters to discourage the effort of discovering
what would constitute a valuable reading list for the field. The effort
is reasonable and useful. But I think we should be cautious about being
too precise and formal in the matter--now or in the future.
The bibliographies of many books and articles provide ample
suggestions--scholarly or pedantic--for detailed reading programs for
students.
What I am most interested in--my own principle of selection--is a
handful of books that can serve as a stimulating beginning point for
creative thinking about the field. Perhaps this is what Victor has in
mind by the common core of works. Then, we might have a larger map of
readings that move out in different directions for history, theory,
criticism, and various forms of design practice. Again, perhaps this is
what Victor has in mind by the "sub-fields" of design.
So, we have a small common core (not as rigid as the Church Canon). And
we have branches with leaves along a path of more focused study, suited
to the area of specialization of the student.
Now, we may begin to map this to the structure of a Ph.D. program,
divided into Preliminary, Comprehensive, and Dissertation phases.
Just some thoughts.
Dick
Richard Buchanan
Professor and Head
School of Design
Carnegie Mellon University
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|