In various discussions (including much of the Perth conference last
December) there is an underlying assumption that "design" defines a
general field. (I suspect that there would be
less-than-total-unanimity if we were asked to define that, describing
what specialties were at the heart of design, which are somehow
peripheral or non-typical, what are closely-related fields and what
are comparatively less-related but that's another question.)
While many of us are intellectual wobblies--believing in one big
department rather than one big union--there is some recognition that
university organization is not entirely historical artifact and that
certain fields of study have more in common than other fields. Any
specific interest might have a set of interests that are very closely
related, with other sets that have less and less in common. Those
with enough in common tend to get grouped together in various
ways--as general fields of study, as departments, etc.
My question is whether the assumption that the interests that tend to
get grouped together as, say, "graphic design" have more in common
with the interest groups "textile design," "industrial design,"
"landscape architecture," etc. than with other interest groups that
deal with visual aesthetics ("art" or "cinema," for instance), with
structuring communication ("rhetoric," etc.), or with the creation of
useful artifacts ("technical writing" comes to mind.)
In what ways is speaking of "design" in the singular useful and in
what ways does it obscure issues?
Gunnar
--
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
536 South Catalina Street
Ventura CA 93001-3625
+1 805 667 2200
[log in to unmask]
http://www.gunnarswanson.com
|