Hello, Everyone.
I've been enjoying the posts (and learning) but responding is like trying
to catch a fish with bare hands! However, I would like to respond to a
quote in GK VanPatter's post...
"I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it is."
Attributed to Wayne Gretsky
When I read this quote, it summed up the idea behind the UCI proposal for a
design school. The proposal is about the future and what will be needed in
relation to design education. For those "designers" out there who think the
proposal should have been done only by those who were educated in a design
school (and therefore a "real" designer), you are part of the problem we
have today in design education. I find it ironic that the UCI committee
members (many who were not trained in traditional design schools) find the
interest and strength to promote the proposal. The UCI proposal is putting
many aspects of design education "where the puck is going to be", and this
includes a wider diversity in the types of people teaching "design" and the
types of students who want a design education. We also have to train our
design students to pursue work other than the "traditional" board work. It
is about finding and opening up new positions in which designers can be
used. I do think, however, that the world needs educated as to the type of
designer they are hiring and the type of education they had, to ensure a
good fit with the company or organization. I am also frustrated with the
"traditional designers" who hold corporate positions and only want to hire
a reflection of themselves, even to the point of only hiring from their own
schools that still teach a 30 year old curriculum. I see the UCI proposal
as a chance to break into a new model for design education and I see others
from diverse disciplines helping us to do this. I don't see the
"traditional designers" who went through design school training helping us
to do this, unless they are a design activist for change. Remember, we can
keep some of the design processes and methods and still move ahead.
Again, from GK...
"As I took note of the dialogue and reflected on the Irvine strategy
artifact I thought it might be useful to try to sketch out some conceptual
territory here that seems to be thus far missing. One of my concerns is
that the degree of change facing design today dwarfs anything that has
arisen in any of the discussion thus far. .....In viewing the Irvine
challenges I believe we are looking at much more than a one-off school
design project. In many ways we are looking at a slice of the future for
design in a still emerging frontier. Like those on the Irvine committee it
is a frontier that I want designers to go forward and occupy with
confidence and skill. It is no secret that it will take some real work to
get there."
I could not agree more that we need a leap in the degree of change for
design. I see many designers (practitioners and educators), in addition to
protecting what they know, very reluctant to rock the boat to move and the
field forward intellectually (and there are ways to do this without
irritating everyone around them). I find it very important to take action,
take risks and just move forward with change where ever I can...especially
in education. Those of you who have a chance to experiment, try, fail, and
try again, will find the mental rewards an amazing payoff, and I encourage
you to do so. I know many of you are already "in action" and I am looking
forward to the next leap. I am especially anxious for the UCI proposal to
be approved because it will serve as a model for change in the US schools.
Lorraine
Lorraine Justice, Ph.D., FIDSA
Director, Industrial Design
404.385.0462
|