Hi Terry and all,
Back in my lovely study in Melbourne.
I'm not sure, Terry, whether you are adopting a particular posture
just to provoke debate, or whether you actually believes what you are
saying. Either way, I'm not sure I can add to what has already been
said except to say that in the big scheme of things I don't think it
makes me more or less of a designer whether I use somebody else's
kerning pairs, fitted into the software in the form of routine
computational look-up tables, or whether I use my own. Either way, I'm
doing the designing. Its just a rather simple issue of the level at
which I chose to exercise control on a routine basis.
In that respect I'm no different to a carpenter who chooses to use a
power tool rather than a hand tool because it's quicker, but knowing
that the power tool will not always give the same type of finish as a
hand tool. Making that choice does not make the power tool a
carpenter. To suggest as much is taking words out of their normal
context of use and just playing with them. I cannot see this as
serious conceptual work, but I'm happy to stand corrected.
None of which takes away from what I believe is your serious and
important critique of 'art and design' education and a need to rethink
much of that area. I would certainly agree that design research
provides some of the basis for that rethinking. But weak arguments
will not wash. You need good evidence.
A`pro pos of which, I was struck by one remark you made which is a
claim for which I would like to see the evidence:
On 19/08/2009, at 5:03 AM, Terence Love wrote:
> The reality is that design professionals now produce around 800%
> more work
> per day and of much higher quality.
Terry, where does this 800% figure come from, and what do you mean by
'much higher quality'? Much higher than what?
Thanks and warm regards,
David
--
blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog
web: http://www.communication.org.au
|