A response to a question by Carma R Gorman about fulcrum and scrums
Dear Carma, sorry for the delay in replying - I have been off-line a few days.
Yes, you take my meaning very well - I have inclueded your account here and the important question at the end. You write:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Keith, I'm not sure I fully understand the lever-fulcrum-load analogy. What
it sounds like you're saying is that although it is easy to justify design
*practice* (on the basis of economic, stylistic, social, and technological
benefits, among others), it is not easy to justify design's existence as an
*academic discipline* within the university setting. Is that what you intend
to say, or am I missing the point? If you could clarify, I'd appreciate it.
But if I did understand you correctly, where else would you propose that
design education occur, particularly if it is to be the sort of
interdisciplinary education that so many people seem to be calling for?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, where else might Design education occur?
My aim here was not so much an introduction to a suggested re-location of Design; rather, it was aimed at a re-introduction of the question about why is Design in the university. I was concerned that the proposal for the New School had closed this question down in anticipation that the question is overpowered by the economic and opportinuistic applications of Design.
Equally, there is, in my country, a deep and resonant claim for Design to be taught outside of Universities. My aim was to keep the question open while pointing to the place where an answer might be found.
all the best
keith russell
OZ
|