Terence wrote:
> I found you can easily divide design sub-fields into four groups:
>
> 1. New sub-disciplines that are emerging
> 2. New sub-disciplines that are in existence and stabilised
> 3. Established sub-disciplines
> 4. Aged meta sub-disciplines that are mainly reference structures and on
> the pathway to becoming irrelevant
>
This all looks stately and reasonable and may well be true. However the
devil is in the problem of identifying these sub-disciplines at stage 1
and even in stage 2. It's the essence of emergence that we cannot
predict which ideas or visions will have staying power. If we try to
hard to define a development before it has worked through we are not
likely to be successful but still we have to try if we want to have
something to work with so I would prefer to talk about tentative
developments and leave the rigidity of sub-disciplines for future
taxonomists. If they wish to have such structures (as some of our
colleagues today quite clearly do) they would be wise to avoid the
"emerging" category just as a biologist should be very careful about
speculating whether an interesting mutation signals a distinct future breed.
best wishes from Sheffield
Chris
*********************
Professor Chris Rust
Head of Art and Design Research Centre
Sheffield Hallam University, S11 8UZ, UK
+44 114 225 2706
[log in to unmask]
www.chrisrust.net
|