I have been following this debate with interest / admiration and a fair
amount of muttering. Thanks to everyone who has made my email page so
unexpectedly exciting.
My contribution is from the UK 'soft-design' vantage point. My name is Ruth
Dineen, I lecture in Typography & Graphic Communication in Cardiff School of
Art & Design within a largely vocational university. I have co-ordinated the
design and delivery of two BA courses and, more recently a ten-programme MA
Matrix consisting of 5 theory and 5 practice programmes clustered round a
common core of cross-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary theory/history
modules.
My current research is in the teaching of creativity in art & design
post-compulsory education.
A major fissure in the debate seems to me to be between the visionaries and
the pragmatists: between education and training; individual development and
social responsibility; aspirations and economic realities. And, in terms of
content, between breadth and depth. Which makes for a great debate but few
conclusions.
Harold Nelson's 'commentary on session 3' was an elegant summation of this
problem:
"The idea of 'feasibility' is an extremely important issue. Anyone who has
experienced the process of making something in the real world understands
that the world speaks back; informing the 'dreamer' of what is to be allowed
or disallowed, depending on negotiations...The challenge is to not let the
voice of experience overpower the dialogue between the idea and the
reality..."
This exactly reflects our recent experience with the MA programmes, on a
macro and micro level. (Nor is it over yet since the programmes are not due
to start until 2004 and there are plenty of real world hurdles to overcome
between now and then.)
As a pragmatic contribution to the debate about the size/shape of the
'vessel' which could 'hold' UCI's aspirations AND meet the demands of the
'real world' I therefore offer our model as a sacrificial starting point. If
general agreement could be reached regarding the vessel, then the debate
could refocus on the content - and the dreamers.
In CSAD's Matrix, approximately two thirds of an individual student's study
is dedicated to a named discipline area - eg. Communication, Society &
Culture, or Art & Science (both theory programmes) or Textile Design or Fine
Art (studio-based programmes) etc. - thus ensuring depth and academic
rigour. During the programme, students begin to negotiate their own area of
interest, culminating in the major student-set Part II assignment.
Just over one-sixth of their study takes place within the core theory
modules where all students (and staff) meet to present, research, and debate
the principles underlying the theory and practice of the creation and
consumption of social/cultural artefacts.
The final element is a set of 5 cross-disciplinary History & Theory Option
modules. Students choose one of these as part of their negotiated programme
study. Their choice may be relatively specific to their discipline or may
offer an entirely new vantage point. Either way, the 'mix' of students
attending the module will broaden the debate and the understandings gained
from that debate.
This was our attempt to balance the contradictions. In the UK the focus has
historically been on linear, single-discipline courses. These are excellent
in delivering depth and specificity but do not particularly encourage
lateral connections, either at an intellectual or practical level. We
believe that, with a following wind, this 3-part model could deliver
discipline-specific, cross-discipline and multi-discipline benefits.
Ruth (Dineen)
Senior Lecturer
Cardiff School of Art & Design
University of Wales Institution, Cardiff
Wales, UK
|