GK VanPatter indicates the need Œ... to resist the temptation to create
idealized notions of design ...¹.
However, I was struck by his wild guess (quoted below) as it does not
correspond with my experience of design education in the UK. No current
postgraduate programmes that I know of in graphic design, interior
architecture, art direction, motion graphics, sustainable product design
as tutor, examiner or colleague set briefs but these are set by the
designers themselves.
One of the ways by which uncertainty is usually managed is to split issues
into binary oppositions, whereby one of the two terms is prioritized
(idealized) while the other vilified. e. g., theory practice; tame
wicked; leadership management; and in this case, design industry design
education.
To infer a binary opposition from a wild guess lacks the necessary rigour to
be considered an argument.
Carlos Sapochnik
---------------------------------------
Middlesex University
London
On 10/11/08 06:03, "GK VanPatter | NextD" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Much of design practice remains confined within what we call the brief
> business. Briefs are defined, framed problems. Taking a wild guess I would
> say that 90% of design schools around the world still reflect this tradition
> and remain engaged in teaching process tools and skills that not only assume
> a design brief but are specifically, systematically geared to jumping off
> from that downstream framing. (Often that framing is being done by others
> with no design background.)
|