BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Dear all
All along my school years at University, in the two Industrial
Design Departments I have gone through (1 year as a freshman,
exceptionally 5 years for a Bachelor’s degree, and 2 years for a
Master’s), I have always voiced it loud and by all means my total
disagreement with exhibitions and critique of students work as the
indicated pedagogical (training and assessment) approach and/or
method at University level.
I used to argue – and still do - my position as follows:
University level training aims, approach, and methods are – ought
to be – different from those in Fine Arts and in Applied Arts or
Technical School (Arts and Crafts). The core purpose of these latter
institutions is to train apprentices to make particular things. These
things made are in one case pieces of art to gaze upon and/or enjoy
through other senses, and in the other case, they are useful,
practical things to be used in different contexts. Whether in Fine
Arts or in Technical/Crafts training, in both cases, obviously the
best way to be in a position to appreciate both the thing made and
the level of skills learned by the apprentices, renown Masters –
intern and/or guests - must ‘look’ at the thing made, scrutinize
it in order to denote “the merits and demerits”, and finally
render a judgement accordingly. And this judgment is paramount both
for the apprentices admission into the respective Corporations ranks,
and for the Masters-custodians to ensure the (advantageously
exclusive) position and perenniality of the Corporation and its
standards. So, in this view and context, mid-term or end of session
‘official’ and ‘public’ critique of students’ outputs is
justified.
The problem arose however when the Arts&Crafts training was
integrated as such within University teaching system, without much
core adaptation other than just a few administrative fittings.
At University level, training consists of learning how to initiate
and do research on ‘universals’ with a view to increment the
knowledge on these. For instance, the case of our concern is that of
knowledge on those universals related to artefacts make and use. And
students are –should be - tested on their ability to find and
discuss, i.e. reason, and eventually, but necessarily, prescribe to -
and implement - themselves or to others the most sound and more
beneficial universals for the betterment of the community. That is,
at least in my view, the ultimate aim in training at University
level; quite different from training in an Arts&Crafts School.
So, it is not only the modalities of critique, review, or whatever
other concept of students’ work assessment ("material space",
"discursive space", time alotment, etc.) that have to be more
searched and cleary determined. I also believe it is the
institutionalized confusion in training for our profession, following
its partially or even unreasoned 'housing' in Universities, that needs
to be cleared first. An often repeated confirmation of the confused
situation, in the parallel thread: Current Trends in Design
Research....
Francois
Montreal
|