Jeffrey Bardzell wrote:
For what it's worth, I'l like to see deconstruction used more in design
research--not dogmatically, of course, but rather as one strategic
source among many. It is a powerful form of criticism, which focuses on
the constructedness of things from a technical and interdisciplinary
perspective. As such, I think it is an appropriate approach to design
research.
and Michael Pearson replied:
Jeffrey - I absolutely agree with you - I firmly believe that we
should
become more critical in our approach to design ... we need ... to
introduce
critical thinking as a precursor to the manifestation of artefact .
Oh - and being critically minded of course we must also interrogate
the
concept of being critical..
I can only agree with both, and if deconstruction is to be used in
design research, let's use it in the way that Derrida originally meant
it: not as a plan for physical action / appearance / a design style, but
as a critical way of seeing and (re)thinking. Seen in this light it is,
of course, not a new idea, but perhaps a new vantage point from which to
"unscramble" what we are confronted with "in the world" - and
immediately the importance of (a knowledge of) language comes back into
design education, and of course people like Wittgenstein and language
games. Design is social communication, but not mere acceptance of what
already is. Michael is right in emphasizing critical thinking - that is
what deconstruction stands for, but it does not stand for an approach to
design that blows things apart and reassembles the shattered pieces (or
a building that looks like an explosion in a fish canning factory - said
one critic once upon a time).
Derrida even came to an understanding with Gadamer in that both agreed
to recognize the existence of social protective guardrails (very similar
to Kelly's personal constructs), and the crucial point is not to explode
these ways of knowing as nonsense or as "wrong" - but to respect these
"barriers" to further knowledge / growth / other interpretations, and to
find ways to overcome them: not by force ("you just listen to me because
I am right") but by allowing another viewpoint to emerge in a
non-threatening way. We all construct meaning in our own way, that is
known to us, and we cannot leave this protective circle without help
(even if that help only comes from an interesting story that I have
read, but one that made me think). The idea is for design students to
move beyond themselves (from where and what they are, now) to that
position, in the future (next week, next year?) where they will
recognize the new person (designer) in themselves. This is done not by
filling their heads (just) with critical theory or any other bits of
knowledge (which by the way is such a rubbish and poorly understood
modernist way of seeing education, because by the time my "knowledge"
gets to you, it has turned back into mere information - the Cinders
coach turned back into a mere pumpkin), but by opening up to them the
wonderful world of critical thought - i.e. any form of deconstructive
reading, which should in all honesty be so close to hermeneutical
interpretation as to make no difference (cf. Ricoeur). This does not
negate in any way the value of theory (I teach students that without
using some form of theory, however trivial, you are probably dead), but
theory can only be "discovered" (the use/fulness and application of
theory) by each individual, and for that you need critical thinking - a
deconstructive way of looking, a research approach that says "prove it
to me - what for - why?"
Michael also wrote: learning and practicing strategies that enables
one
to think critically is a more powerful skill than knowledge of
critical
theory - this is exactly what we are doing, Michael, in our so-called
History and Theory of Design course, and I was very glad to read this
post of yours, as I was with the previous one which I handed on to my
staff for discussion. I can almost echo your sentiment of crying in
one's sleep for the lost opportunities for students, but luckily there
are enough of my 3rd years who actually do become critical thinkers to
spare me the worst of educational nightmares.
Johann
PS: I used this 2002 article by Jan Michl, "On seeing design as
redesign", Scandinavian Journal of Design History 12, as the basis of a
"test" of design thinking - you cannot design without someone else's
input, without design solution precedents, i.e. without moving outside
your safe and known circle / comfort zone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer
This e-mail transmission contains confidential information,
which is the property of the sender.
The information in this e-mail or attachments thereto is
intended for the attention and use only of the addressee.
Should you have received this e-mail in error, please delete
and destroy it and any attachments thereto immediately.
Under no circumstances will the Cape Technikon or the sender
of this e-mail be liable to any party for any direct, indirect,
special or other consequential damages for any use of this e-mail.
For the detailed e-mail disclaimer please refer to
http://www.ctech.ac.za/polic or call +27 (0)21 460 3911
|