Thankyou, "B." (aguas) for the invitation to discuss other educational
strategies, using Dr. Love's ambitious design course as a starting point.
(see "Dr. Love's design research program re-stated" 19
May....from: "aguas" <[log in to unmask]>
Before I reply to specific issues raised, I hope this selectively
over-condensed and anecdotal 'Design Course' story adds something to the
discussion......from 1989 at Goldsmiths College, London University, we
adopted highly student-centred pedagogies out of our Fine Art model and
tried to challenge existing models of design. The idea of "REsearch" was
never an issue, because we just wanted to promote deep thinking alongside
effective action. (Whatever happened to "search"?) First we ignored
conventional specialist boundaries, and licensed ourselves to dream beyond
market forces. So far, so good. Each student's task was to get in touch
with their idealistic, altruistic side and to become wiser, entrepreneurial
world-citizens.
We introduced (fragments of) philosophical, psychological, ecological,
anthropological, sociological, sociocybernetic and other
self-re-positioning perspectives, to enable a responsible and continuous
redrafting of the idea of design itself. This task has become increasingly
connected to issues of
culture and belief. At the risk of sounding cranky, the western mindset
(including 'Design') has been exported everywhere (within the context of
consumerism), and continues to encroach upon everything. Most of our
students are from different parts of the world and we try to learn from
their traditional understandings. But what about the so-called 'real' (i.e.
commercial) world'? Arguably, the word 'entrepreneur' leaves a gap in the
English language, because it is co-dependent with the 'entredonneur' (my
neologism for someone who gives, rather than takes, between and amongst
others. By now we had extended the idea of 'design' to include virtually
everything in the universe, and our students began to realise that they
must work at a political, ideological, conceptual, relational, and
opportunistic level, so that workable and pragmatic alternatives can be
found and offered in a suitable way.
At this point we realised that his requires them to model situations and
predicaments without forgetting their own role and assumptions. To meet
this problem I devised our MA in Design Futures (1994), which requires
students to assume a professional role, and to nominate a specific reader
for each document they submit. I have developed a methodology to combine
the most helpful features of academic+rhetorical with
autodidactic+abductive writing. Each document would normally start with the
student's own concerns, and declare clear links with specific practical
design work. They are expected to show an empathetic grasp of the reader's
(i.e client's) predicament and/or potential. Recently (with help from Denis
O'Brien of Ringi Ltd) we increasingly challenged our basic
individual-centred model and worked more with group-centred approach. We
try to question everything and to provide an additional, less
student-oriented framework to ensure that certain issues are not ignored in
a given cohort. Our 4 seminar headings:
1 society and the individual
2 ethics and the environment
3 cognition and communication
4 technology, culture, and change
To cut this long story short, those early critics that complained that we
were failing to provide job "skills" and were "out of touch" were
confounded by the high employment rate our BA(Hons) students achieved.
Likewise, some of our MA students walked straight into leading
multi-million pound projects, or began working as consultants for many
corporations. Perhaps there is one vain assumption that kept us
going.....despite the popular belief amongst students that international
corporations are essentially greedy and vengeful, we tend to assume that
they really want to save the world but do not know how to do so. This where
the would-be entredonneur may have to learn to dance with entrepreneurship.
Now. if you've been patient enough to read this far.......here is a
response to the issues raised by (B's) definitions:
1) "creativity": Personally, I am usually suspicious of claims to
'creativity', although I would probably defend them without daring to speak
its name. (why? - add Romantic individualism to Enlightenment methods and
you have rampant Consumerism!).
2) "ontological data language": I find this term puzzling. Surely it makes
ontology into a mode of epistemology. Heidegger (and Tony Fry) more
helpfully apply the word 'ontology' to refer to the co-dependent act of
becoming,, not as a claim to what is 'really' there.
3) "epistemological principles....": ....a hint of positivism in this
definition? in my view, epistemologies should always remain 'up for grabs'.
4) "axioms....design is a fundamental human process.": same applies.
Arguably, axioms are simply beliefs we decide not to challenge any more.
Who says all peoples are designers? It's a truism. If we use western
language to say it, then it seems self-evidently true. If we question the
assumption, then we may realise that Design is a deeply teleological and
instrumentalist idea. Not all cultures subscribe to these values.
5) I agree, although there is something Sci-Fi scary about the language.
Why don't we say 'knowing' instead of 'cognising'? (I'm also reproaching
myself, here). Thank you.
John Wood (programme director)
MA Design Futures
Department of Design
Goldsmiths' College, University of London
Lewisham Way, New Cross
London SE14 6NW UK
TO APPLY: http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pgprospectus/pgapply/pgapplyfrm.html
________________________________________________
WEB: http://futures.gold.ac.uk/
VOICE: +44 (0) 207 919 7794
FAX: +44 (0) 207 919 7783
________________________________________________
[editor] "The Virtual Embodied: practice | presence | technology"
now available from Routledge, NY & London. ISBN 0-415-16026-X
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|