Session 5: Closing remarks …part 2- M P Ranjan
Continuing with my submission this morning, I pass over much of what was
discussed between the 16th and 21st of November and I come across many
valuable ‘Treats” or “Goodies” in the form of comments and notes that
enriched the discussion. Among them are a couple of submissions by Ken
that I will name. The detailed note on Einstein (21st November) is one
of them where in the end he says “ Einstein’s gift to design was the
science that paved the way for some of the most useful products in
today’s world.” Two ideas that are argued strongly here are the need for
rigour in research and the need for testing in both science and design.
I agree that these disciplines, science, technology (engineering) and
design are not to be treated as adversaries but as one path, along a
continuum, one leading to the other with a lot of interdependencies
between them. This note drew a comment from Cheryl Akner-Koler (21st
November) who referred to the visual imagination of Einstein as his
strongest point. This is a very designerly ability and it may well be a
creative ability and one required for a scientist as well. The question
here is how do we encourage visual imagination and visual expression
without undermining rigour and systematic testing of those visions as
part of our attempt to take design to a higher plane as an acceptable
discipline at the University.
The second note (Treat 2) is Ken’s post on the history and etymology of
the word “design”. On numerous occasions I have witnessed states of
utter confusion when the word “design “ is referred to in a historical
context. Thank you Ken for taking the trouble to clarify facts in a
usable format.
Dino Karabeg (24th November) calls for a new social role for design
which is a very appealing thought and I wonder if the School of Design
at the University would take up this call in addition to the market
oriented directions that are already planned. A similar line of
reasoning is taken up by Ricardo (25th November) and I do agree that
there are limits to how far a marketing based approach can be pushed for
design to remain relevant. Ken (25th November) in his response to
Rosan’s three questions clarifies many of the issues raised about the
nature of the School and the position that the authors took while
drafting the report. It is clear that there are no easy answers when it
comes to design and that is at the root of the very nature of design as
an activity and a discipline.
I do hope that the School of Design at UC Irvene finds the support and
required funding to realise the vision that has been so carefully
crafted and so widely discussed over the past few weeks.
I take this opportunity to thank the organisers and in particular Ken
for inviting me to be part of this very exciting event. I am signing
off from the online conference having made many new friends in distant
places who are active in seeking answers to the very same questions that
have held my interest over the many years of design education and
practise in India. I do look forward to hearing from some of you offline
on any questions about India or our ongoing activities here at the
National Institute of Design in Ahmedabad. Our website that is evolving
may be a source of current information about the Institute if you need
to look it up <http://nid.edu>
Good bye and with warm regards
M P Ranjan
From my office at NID
16 December 2003 at 10.30 pm IST
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. M P Ranjan
Faculty of Design
and
Head, NID Centre for Bamboo Initiatives
and
Faculty Member on the Governing Council
National Institute of Design
Paldi
Ahmedabad 380007
INDIA
Email: <[log in to unmask]>
Fax: 91+79+6605242
Home: 91+79+6610054
Work: 91+79+6639695 ext 1090
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|