Dear Gavin,
In reply to Rob Woodbury you say
"... but I'm not into a power game."
But, when you then say
"... design (interior, industrial, product,
communication) I think needs some champions."
it sounds like you are indeed into a power game.
To exclude architecture programmes from any list
of design programmes, for whatever reason, could
hardly be anything but power gaming.
-- Tim
=========================================================================
At 11:06 +1000 6/6/07, Gavin Melles wrote:
>Hello Robert (and others)
>Yes, I suppose it is a political boundary and yes I know that
>architecture owns design (also) but I'm not into a power game. I
>also know there are tussles over territory e.g. interior
>design/architecture but really architecture is far better served in
>the literature and design (interior, industrial, product,
>communication) I think needs some champions. On the other hand, if
>someone else wants to do the math on architecture - I don;t have the
>time - then we can produce and expanded spreadsheet.
>
>>>> Robert Woodbury <[log in to unmask]> 6/06/2007 12:45 am >>>
>I note you exclude architecture. Why? If you visit architecture
>graduate programs today, you will find that many projects and theses
>involve issues indistinguishable from other areas of design.
>
>I would argue you are drawing a political, not a substantive,
>boundary. Is your goal power, or knowledge?
>
>-rob-
>
>--
>Rob Woodbury
>Professor
>Scientific Director, Canadian Design Research Network (www.cdrn.ca)
|