Warning - this post has too many subjects - is not connected - and is
totally unsupported with references - it is also preaching to the choir -
so to speak.
In response to several threads and 'hooray' to see Erik's post:
“That is also why art, with its more or less different intention, is
another"type of activity", distinct from design and science.
Regards
Erik Stolterman
Umea University”
I will have to admit at this point to having the agenda of keeping the word
'art' in-place alongside the word design. (Over several years now)
The why is extremely complex - but it very much relates to the Great
Exhibition in the UK 1851? - that indirectly led to the formation of Art
Colleges to solve the aesthetic design issues of the time.
At the height of the British Empire and following on from the preceeding
Industrial Revolution - it was the lack of design that spawned its very
creation - as an academic subject - i.e. Not art/sculpture but manufactured
items. The scientific engineered approach was responsible for the move to
art and how self expression might improve aesthetics. We needed art to save
us from science at that point.
Next item.
To reflect that most of the list centres in geographic areas that now sees
the design, manufacturing and supply centres only as the 'receiver' - or
consumer - in other words to have completely changed since the Great
Exhibition (read British Empire) - and the analysis of the design world
abstract from its initial inception.
It is the Chinese, Taiwanese, Koreans, Germans, French, Scandinavians,
Japanese and Indian sub-continent that are in the process of creating the
World we discuss and research.
From the recently published list of participants - it is almost completely
inversely proportional. Amazing.
This was one thread - the second one - the very idea of a 'BSc' in (Art
and) Design is a personal anathema. Can we imagine what the creators of
those colleges would think of both threads:
A. The consumerism situation today.
B. The scientific approach to creativity and it's education. .
Is research seeking to pull Art + design into its scientific clutches? Thus
redressing the mistake made so long ago.
Item3
Finally, I am free to speak as this list is predominently academic in
nature. There has been recent critiscism that there is little reaction to
certain requests from educators and acdemics. With over 1000 participants -
there is high chance of some kind of repercussion academically should
someone take that role.
This issue might explain Ken's use of an avatar to express an outlet as an
academic. (Even that back-fired - through his honesty).
I do not believe I could take this stance professionally with clients and
colleagues - but have always sought to express truth on this list, and
therefore suggest silence on this list might be considerably more deafening
than others would suggest........
Long live the list.
GJ
--------------------------
Glenn Johnson
Director, B/E Aerospace Industrial Design Studio
tel. +1 336 744 3143
fax. +1 336 744 3207
|