On Dec 29, 2004, at 3:07 AM, Ricardo wrote:
> There is a large body of literature on 'innate talent', which is what
> seems to be discussed here. Most accounts of innate talent make use of
> circular reasoning: "X designs so well because X has talent. How do I
> know X has talent? That’s obvious, X designs so well!"
Yes. I have described Paul Rand's descriptions of good and bad design
and how to judge as tautological egocentrism. I think the phrase may
work for his comments on talent as well.
The question of talents being innate is interesting but at the level of
university education it may not matter whether talents are born or
developed early. The immediate question for post-secondary educators is
which skills can be learned late, which (if any) cannot, and by whom.
The "by whom" part is the practical question for post-secondary
educators: When can aptitudes (or lack thereof) can be spotted and how?
Are the regular university admission standards worthwhile for
admissions to design studies? (This assumes for the moment that they
are worthwhile for university admissions.) What greater or lesser
standards would be applicable as measures of what talents?
Of course a good case could be made for developing certain design
talents most among those with the least aptitude. If we assume certain
sorts of "design thinking" would be of general benefit to society, a
wider distribution of a lower level of some "talents" may be more
important than the acute development of skills in a much smaller group.
Gunnar
----------
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
536 South Catalina Street
Ventura California 93001-3625 USA
+1 805 667-2200
[log in to unmask]
http://www.gunnarswanson.com
|