David,
Thanks for the ok. I needed that.
> "Sometimes, a better understanding may well lead
> to new and/or systematic ways of designing, but I hang on to the belief
> that, for example, intuitive ways of working - in a suitable context
> and applied in a suitable way - will continue to be utilised by certain
> kinds of designers."
Yes, I also think that intuitive making is such an important part of the
process. I value it. I probably didn't give that point enough stress. The
only thing that bothers me is the outside perspective on intuitive making
as a kind of blind instinct -- one where the designer simply obeys the
call. I think what happens is not instinct exactly, but a process that's
much harder to call up verbally. (I'm not really familiar with the
literature here. I apologize if there have been studies on this topic I do
not know about.) But, a few years back I did a talk-aloud pilot study on
struggling versus expert learners of visual design skills. The struggling
students gave me lots of data. The expert learner had a harder time talking
as he worked. I had to keep prompting. Now it could just be the
personalities of the participants. But his experience struck me as
personally "on the mark." Ever since, I've had the feeling that the more
effectively engaged a designer is in making, the harder it might be to
verbalize the reasoning behind it. Explicit and retrievable verbal knowing
might be replaced by another type of knowing. Linda Flower and John Hayes
talk about multiple ways of knowing (1984). But I'm just making guesses
here.
>
>> When I read the proposal, I was struck by the omission of graphic or
>> communication design as it leaves unexplored my own favorite area,
>> visual/verbal design.
>
> Gunnar Swanson has also raised this, and I too would like to hear UCI's
> view. As Gunnar suggests, these are often large programmes - here at
> Stoke, graphic design is easily the largest single course. Where we
> hover around 25-35 in most cohorts, graphics once took 100 students,
> and still is around 80 or so now.
I just want to leave this up.
>
> I am glad to hear this. I guess this bears out my belief that it is
> not either/or but can be both traditional skills AND intellectual
> inquiry.
Yes, I think that collaboration is something that design can really hang on
to. And as we learn more about what we make and how we make it (and other
aspects of design that I should be mentioning), the more the combination of
theory and making might seem useful. I do think that theory can sometimes
seem divorced from what we do. But I believe we just need to keep working
on the intellectual inquiry. I can't imagine that the divide is destined to
stay that way.
Your description of tutors at work reminded me of the RCA in
> London when I was a student - transferring from a college with a
> reputation for very woody furniture, to the RCA in industrial design
> opened my eyes to so many possibilities.
>
Yes. I agree. Those moments are amazing.
Susan
Flower, Linda, and John Hayes, R. “Images, Plans, and Prose.” Written
communication 1, no. 1 (1984): 120-60.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Susan M. Hagan, Ph.D., MDes.
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh PA 15213
v. 412.268.7508
f. 412.268.7989
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Susan M. Hagan, Ph.D., MDes.
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh PA 15213
v. 412.268.7508
f. 412.268.7989
|