Hello all,

As always, I learn from this forum and not only learn, but also find my own
unexpressed difficulties given voice. Dr. Durling (I apologize for my
ongoing formality -- my mother must take the blame -- I will use first
names once given the go-ahead) has touched on ideas that I either want to
second or challenge a bit.

As a former practicing designer and now a researcher who believes in the
opportunity to discover principles of practice both through observation and
in reflective practice, I agree that design is not, and will not become a
science. Design problems do not lead to one correct formula that ends the
discussion. Instead, as Dr. Durling states design concerns itself with,
"...these ways of working sometimes intuitively or conjecturally..." going
on to state that "... comfort with ill defined problems or uncertain
information, are all characteristics that may be special to traditional
design." His observation echoes the way I understand design. It is an
indeterminant situation with many possible solutions -- some better and
some worse.

But within that indeterminant space, we can find principles of practice
useful for creative exploration, principles that are also receptive to the
constraints of the situation. It is the principles of practice we are about
to discover that I believe may sometimes feel radically new. When those new
ideas arise (as they are already arising) we'd best have a foundation, a
core understanding, so that when the radically new comes our way, the
emerging discipline does not fracture. Perhaps an assumption of the
ill-defined nature of our field (within a set of principles that prevent
chaos), rather than a core assumption of a science of the field, is one
such value.

I was also concerned with another problem Dr. Durling brought up. He
mentions, "...the areas that are left out of the UCI proposal.  One or two
respondents mentioned, for example, visual communications and graphic
design.  I do not see these as different from design."

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. I allowed the political problems involved, the fact
that this area is already under the umbrella of another school, to sway me.
Thank you Dr. Durling for not allowing that issue to go unnoticed.

So, that is the way in which I must echo and applaud Dr. Durling's
observations. But I must also take issue with this next point -- of course,
I am only doing what has been asked.

"It is reported that the traditional art foundation course at
Carnegie-Mellon University was replaced over a decade ago in favour of an
approach that develops intellectual skills (Buchanan, 1999)."

As a graduate with a Masters of Design from Carnegie Mellon, I have to say
that the intellectual skills developed here are tremendous. The class I
took from Dick (I have been given the go-ahead) was one of the best classes
I have ever taken. But I think he would agree that the perspectives I
gained about design through him, the problematizing of design, went on to
enhance and give me new insights as I studied ways of making from a
traditional perspective.  These intellectual skills have in no way meant an
end to the pursuit of traditional skills or the abandonment of the
master/apprentice learning experience. I agree that the traditional skills
must be passed on. This learning situation is essential, and I believe, can
be found in even the most scientifically based graduate programs in the
form of the advisor/student relationship. I hope I won't become boring when
I say I have personally benefited by watching the elegant move of the pen
over paper as it sits in Mark Mentzer's hand while he draws the scene
before him. Or the way that Dan Boyarski can show a student how holding
back on the presentation of the period at the end of a sentence (in
different ways) can effect the meaning held in the text of a time-motion
piece (Forgive me for using what may be unfamiliar names in this forum, but
they are rightfully earned citations). That training forever marks my own
drawing and designing. When I teach my own courses, which include a project
based course in which writers and designers collaborate, we used the theory
in my dissertation as a springboard for "through the fingers" making that I
guide using the traditional approaches I learned here. Theory and practice
find synthesis here. One has not replaced the other. I think that Dick
might agree with me. He has added a essential dimension to the School of
Design, one that collaborates with other dimensions.

So, there you have it.

Again, thank you so much for the opportunity to contribute.


Susan (you have been given the go-ahead)



:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Susan M. Hagan, Ph.D., MDes.
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh PA 15213

v. 412.268.7508
f. 412.268.7989