Danny Butt quoted
> ...This could just be amusing, if only all five did not take their
> interpretation of 'subject,' on the sub-reflective level of
> obviousness, to be the only right one...
This seems to me to be one of the truly interesting and important issues
and one which I have observed in practice*. The notion of
"interdisciplinarity" depends on the existence of individuals who can
stand aside from their own background and notice the possibilities in
other people's concepts. I have been extremely lucky to work with a few
people like that, they have all been both very experienced and very open
to moving on to something new. Perhaps Mieke's characterisation of
"eager young scholars" is part of the point and mirrors Jacques'
characterisation of discipline-bound students. It takes time to notice
the different valid ways that people operate. Despite Jacques' remarks,
I don't imagine that the USA is any different from other countries where
designers migrate into all kinds of roles and it is certainly true that
the USA leads the way in bringing new kinds of people into the
professional arena of designing. On that basis I prefer to consider
designing, when it is focused on experience rather than technology, as a
single fluid discipline or field, rather than worry about sub-divisions
within it.
best wishes from Sheffield
Chris
*for a simple example, I have always been interested by the way that
many engineers find it difficult to conceive of a "model" as being
anything other than a mathematical construct. In a group project I was
introduced as being responsible for "physical modelling". A day later
one of the group confessed that he had been puzzling over this
description and could only assume that I was there to produce
mathematical models of physical characteristics.
|