I would like to clarify my position about mathematics in design.
When we talk about design domains utilizing natural sciences, I have no
hesitation to state that math is essential. However, when we talk about
industrial design courses, I would stay aside and listen.
My experience is in architecture. I believe architects should study
mathematics and descriptive/projective geometry, in order to understand
better the structure courses. Although architects in many countries do not
engage in structural calculations, they need to understand how structures
work in order to use the best possible options in terms of structures, to
foresee the effects of using a particular type of structure, to use stories
of structural behavior for conceptualizing structural expression, as well
as to communicate more efficiently with the civil engineers. Modern
architects often develop their ideas with an architectonic approach.
This approach requires good understanding of how structures and materials
work. Santiago Calatrava exemplifies this paradigm in architectural
thinking in the most extreme way. I am not a big fan of his, but I respect
his superior mastery.
However, I have information about excellent industrial designers, trained
in fine arts academies, who don't have solid background in the technical
aspects. I am more then interested to hear positions about this. Besides,
architectural programs are placed in three types of educational settings:
technical/civil engineering institutions, fine arts academies, and
independent schools within Universities. My experience is that even when an
architectural department is placed in a civil engineering institution, the
department might have very big autonomy and enjoy the benefits of using
engineering faculty for custom-tailored architectural courses on
structures, as well as the liberty to develop its own unique artistic
personality.
Regards,
Lubomir
|