Hello All:
I am Paul Varghese. I come from a background in architecture, with general
design as an interest. So too having taken a masters from UCLA with
computational design /design theory as a concentration, recently begun in
the PhD program at (my alma-mater,) the Indian Inst. of Tech. (IIT)
Kharagpur, with about fifteen(??) years in industry ...
From the earlier discussion:
>Searching the web-pages even of the good design research institutions
>worldwide, one finds very few faculty with a background from outside
design>.
----
As much as I understand that probably many of the readers of the list come
from differing backgrounds, I hope I will be able to address myself to most
of you (or maybe merely to myself? :-)
I have been trying to understand /build up from a very broad comprehension
of what could make up design, and might define design as broadly
'creativity', a hackneyed term, which has been explored in many disciplines
including the scientific & engineering literature ... This also goes with
my biases towards the work / definitions of B. Fuller and H. Simon as some
of the pioneers in a 'science of design', if it may be called as such...
As a social phenomenon, sometimes I wonder about creativity, aesthetics,
design, music, etc. and sometimes come up / suggest a hypothesis that
'familiarity' plays a broad role in 'art appreciation', as in aesthetics.
This is usually echoed in the statements of 'the common man' as well as of
connoisseurs (of what is 'beautiful!' or a 'classic'). Thus even though
these definitions seem temporal, does 'classicism' really begin with
'recognition' of (art/design) movements, genres, etc. I sometimes feel that
this definition is often quite restrictive and 'time-bound', as against any
attempt at 'perfection', if one can define that as a non-individual
/impersonal pursuit...
---
On a different point, the UC design faculties themselves (from my own
biased viewpoint) has/had (and lost sometimes) many great faculty, not
least of whom I may list Christopher Alexander (ucb), Lionel March (ucla),
Horst Rittel (ucb), G. Stiny (ref. his book on 'Algorithmic Aesthetics')
(la), B. Mitchell (la), C. Eastman (la), etc. (as much as my biases are
apparent...)
[However, one must say that the system in the US is quite broadbased, and
students from quite diverse backgrounds can major in architecture /design
(at the master's/ professiional level -- similar to medicine, management or
law).]
A point is that while many have invariably come from varying backgrounds
outside of architecture (or design) itself, their traditions were not
immediately 'absorbable' by students from conventional design backgrounds
-- that limiting factor of 'conventional' vs. 'innovative' methods of study
seem a frailty.
This seems to echo conventional methods in architecture, and the need to
classify buildings or artefacts, as with products too, within 'typological'
boundaries...
On the other hand, one might like to look at the MediaLab at MIT as a
counterpoint to the current argument, to what is possible ... It seems to
have become quite successful, and the probable reason being the
collaboration of industry and academia ...
I don't intend to get into deep controversies here but somehow it does take
a while to go from a restrictive opinion of 'what-is' to 'what-can-be',
from the 'accepted' / 'existing' to the normative...
A probable approach I might put forward is that a very broad range of both
students as well as faculty be looked at ... Instead of a predetermined
course of study, the students absorb university-wide or industry-wide
experience which are countable as credit. Faculty could be visiting only,
and likely to change from sem.-to-sem. / term-to-term, etc. This in itself
will provide a broad background to design itself, instead of limiting
itself to any particular 'field' as much as the faculty might be
specialists themselves ... It might be a way for the students to absorb
very diverse areas of study so that a diverse exposure is possible, and
(sometimes) to suit the individual, by background or by interest...
But on the other hand the argument might be put forward that the school
might only be looking at generalists as opposed to specialists, which is
sometimes seen as the order/need of the day ... this too needs to be
considered ...
I hope that I can see some degree of what is real, and such brainstorming
would definitely help...
[My presence elsewhere is mandatory over the next few days, hence my need
to put in my 2c worth before hurrying off ....]
Regards to all
Paul Varghese
-------------------
http://www.ddsl.net
|