Hi Jurgen,



I agree that the Discourse School or the Industrial Discourse Department or 
even the Chair of Interior Discourse from the Art & Discourse School will be 
magnificent. These monuments would correspond to a new epistème naturally. 
And I certainly hope to meet you soon and laugh for whatever reason although 
my sympathy for the great people of Germany is a little bit cold since the 
Euro 2008. ;-)



However, I must get back to reality, the present and especially the past.

Let's get back to 1st our relation with Modernists, 2nd how people interpret 
Design (percipients and producers)? and 3rd how do we write Design History?



Design as Discourse as has been developed by others in this thread seems to 
have abandoned the 1st and the 3rd and concentrated in the middle.

Design studies (I wouldn't dare to call it Design Theory) seem to be more 
and more focusing on what we could also call Design as Emission in which 
discursive matters matter a lot.

Forgetting our relation with the Modernists would be equivalent to cut the 
branch where we are seated next to the tree. Forgetting how to write Design 
History would be equivalent to cutting the whole tree with an axe while 
seating in one of the branches.



I think sometimes that we are really running on the map instead of being on 
the terrain meaning that we read the theory and do not do as the theorist 
did.



Schools are a very good terrain. Some of you may remember our on-line 
conference (thank you Ken) about Design at Irvine. It was very elucidative 
about what Design is or must be or we wish it would be.

What a Design School (or design department, whatever)teaches this or why 
teaches that, gives a pretty good picture of what design is about. And come 
to think of it also about what are the relations between design and 
discourse. Probably nothing is more discursive than a University level 
institution, in any sense of the word you may think about.

Here's an example from the Rhode Island School of Design Web Site:

"On March 22, 1877, the Rhode Island General Assembly ratified "An Act to 
Incorporate the Rhode Island School of Design." The corporation, comprised 
of a forward-thinking group of men and women, artists and business leaders, 
educators and politicians, was formed "for the purpose of aiding in the 
cultivation of the arts of design." The original by-laws set forth the 
following primary objectives for the school:

First. The instruction of artisans in drawing, painting, modeling, and 
designing, that they may successfully apply the principles of Art to the 
requirements of trade and manufacture.

Second. The systematic training of students in the practice of Art, in order 
that they may understand its principles, give instruction to others, or 
become artists.

Third. The general advancement of public Art Education, by the exhibition of 
works of Art and of Art school studies, and by lectures on Art."



Why, in earth, the forward-thinkers of the richest state by square mile in 
the US would think of applying "the principles of Art to the requirements of 
trade and manufacture."?

We are talking about people that live after the Romanticism so Art was 
already Art. We are talking about people that got filthy rich on trading and 
manufacture. Why all the three commandments are related to Art and only one 
mentions Design if they wanted to incorporate a School of Design?



Art was central as was never before in the history of Humankind in the 
discourse of Modernity. Art in everyday life (I think it was Schiller who 
stressed this but I'm not sure).



These are the questions that I think are interesting for fulfilling Victor's 
prophecy.



Best,



Eduardo