Dear list,

I did write before but in the form of silly questions, and without
introducing myself. So the introduction comes first, followed by my
comments on Per Galle's nightmare...

I started life with a 1-year design (architectural drafting) course because
I liked drwaing but also becaue I needed to pay for the rest my education,
which was first a B.Sc. in Electrical Engineering (a mixture of Systems
Sciences and Computer Science actually). Since I never really managed to
decide what I wanted to be when I grow up, I collected an additional minor
in Molecular Biology. I then studied towards a Masters degree in Applied
Statistics, and then another masters in "Informatics" as it is called at
the University of Oslo/Norway, where I now work. After more than 10 years
of computing (without ever really stopping drawing), I decided for an
additional short education in Film/Theater. I played at the Norwegian
national theater, in a TV series, and directed a few short movies while I
do what I usually do, which currently is teaching and doing research in the
"Information Design" research group at the institute of informatics.

At one point, I was assigned the responsibility to design an intensive
educational unit in "media design and IT" or "MeDIT" as it was called then
(1997-1999). The aim was to try to put together something modular that
could support both information technology and applied arts students.

In relation to MeDIT, I was posed a question similar to Per Galle's
question. My answer was that the issue is divisible into two parts: "what
is", i.e., identifying and interpreting the situation as it is today
(then), and "what should be", i.e., starting form "what is" and planning
towards a better alternative.

I am afraid the answer to "what is" was pretty close to Per Galle's
nightmare already then. It is strange, but we seem to be experiencing the
era of splits -- also politically, geographically, thematically etc. This
seems to be alarmingly valid for arts and sciences, for theory and
pracitice, for research and industry and so on.Even in the very same
discipline, practitioneers don't trust researchers very much (at least in
Norway, but I have seen indications that suggest that it may be valid
elsewhere too). This is valid at many levels. As an example, "formalists"
do not trust "software engineers" within the computer science community.

Thus, coming up with a good answer to "what should be" becomes not only
important but critical.

My answer in relation to MeDIT was pretty aloof. Though I can see that it
should be treated with a few tons of humility, I still "feel" the same way
deep down inside. I remember saying almost exactly (because it got
re-quoted several times afterwards) that "I can not think of a
well-structured mathematical proof without beauty, nor a beatuful painting
without sound structure. The only thing we can do is teach that to
students, and in the mean time, make an archetypal of Leonardo da Vinci and
feed it to them". The working name for MeDIT was daVinci.

I suppose what I am trying to say is: Yes the situation is bad, but we can
do something about it if we are aware of it and have a (maybe not perfect
but) "better" direction. I beleive the the Irvine propsosal as well as
other attempts to establish design studies that are cross-disciplinary are
"better directions".

Best regards,

~~Naci Akkøk
~~Department of Informatics, University of Oslo
~~Visiting address: Gaustadalléen 23 (informatics building, room 3344)
~~Postal address : P.O. Box 1080, Blindern, 0316 Oslo, Norway
~~Phone : +47 - 22 85 27 71 (office, direct)
~~ : +47 - 22 85 24 10 (IfI administration)
~~ : +47 - 47 02 68 79 (cellular)
~~Fax : +47 - 22 85 24 01
~~E-mail: [log in to unmask] (work, attended regularly)
~~ : [log in to unmask] (personal, attended regularly)