Chris Rust writes that, "crafting is a central part of designing,"
describing it as "the part that distinguishes designing from speculation."
He continues, "Most of the really effective designers that I have known
have had a strong element of craftsmanship in their make-up and this has
been central to their approach to designing - the quality and
appropriateness with which they represent their ideas is absolutely vital
to the success of the continuing cycles of envisaging and evaluation
through which a robust design can be developed.
"This is not unique to design, of course, any experimental activity will
benefit from care taken in the design and construction of experimental
processes. However, I will risk a severe flaming by saying that many
scientists and technologists that I meet comment that this concern with
making and the quality of making is the thing that they value in the
designers they meet and work with."
I agree.
I have discussed this issue at length in the paper, "Design Science and
Design Education." One of the challenges in training designers today is
that we do not have students with us for the same long periods that
apprentices had to develop craft skills. A rich understanding of knowledge
creation and theory development helps to bridge the gap for those kinds of
knowledge that can be attained either through thinking or through crafting.
Some kinds of knowledge can only be attained through crafting. Moreover,
some kinds of knowledge require innate - that is, untaught or inborn --
talent, skill, or some form of perception and discernment that might be
labeled talent or ability.
The glory - and the challenge - of education is in helping interested and
willing individuals to develop their inborn skills and talents as far as
possible through the use of mind and body, and through the elegant and
caring mentoring that teaching can become when it is practiced at its best.
Crafting and theoretical knowledge are intimately linked in a rich design
education. Interestingly, the old craft guilds also taught forms of
theoretical knowledge, and as the apprentice advanced in the guild, he was
required to demonstrate greater and deeper mastery of the theoretical
aspects of guild knowledge along with demonstrating stronger and deeper
mastery of craft skill.
The difficulty we often face in design education is that making and
crafting are honored while theory-driven knowledge and the many forms of
wisdom once required of apprentices, journeymen and masters have not always
been respected in their modern equivalence. Thus our design schools produce
more edgy, fashionable designers than they produce designers with the
cognitive and industrial skills of a Mollerup or a Deming.
To call for an understanding of rhetoric and articulation as a pillar of
design does not diminish the need for craft. So, no flame from me Chris. We
agree here. If I did not make it clear enough, I'll try to articulate
myself better.
The doing part is important, and I would say that rich craft knowledge is
part of "how to be" when it embraces the many issues of crafting that
challenge the designer today. What I am challenging is the cult of making
without thinking, feeling, or understanding the results of what we make.
This is a cult that mistakes thoughtless crafting for the rich craft
tradition that once led designers from apprenticeship through journeyman
status through mastery, at each level deepening their wisdom and knowledge
of craft theory even as they deepened their ability in craft activity.
Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Knowledge Management
Norwegian School of Management
+47 22.98.51.07 Direct line
+47 22.98.51.11 Telefax
Home office:
+46 (46) 53.245 Telephone
+46 (46) 53.345 Telefax
email: [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|