Chris and all,
I responded to a similar comment to someone who responded to me off line.
Here is a slightly edited version on my thoughts on that particular facet of
the crit phenomenon.
Your point [the need to replicate the nature of architectural practice in a
crit] is well taken and respected. Moreover, it supports one of my
contentions, which is that crits are more effective when they reflect the
realities of the discipline and not, as I previously stated [in my first
post], a one-size-fits-all model.
I make this comment for two reasons. First, it is easy for one design
discipline to borrow the crit model from another discipline without
understanding the context of that discipline. I experienced this in early
industrial design education when many instructors were trained as architects
and simply transferred the architectural crit model to industrial design.
Second, I practiced as an industrial designer for over ten years before
becoming an educator, both as a consultant and a corporate designer. In
those ten years working with a variety of clients -- small and large, local
and international -- I never experienced the confrontational attitude that I
hear exists between, for example, architects and developers. In my
experience, industrial designers and their clients work in an environment
that is more collaborative and cooperative because they appear to share a
common goal. Consequently, it makes more sense to create a crit in
industrial design that mimics this model rather than a confrontational one,
which bears little relationship to industrial design practice.
Jacques
PS: I have dropped the word 'crit' from my lexicon. I now use the words
progress review.
On 9/11/09 12:11 AM, "Chris Brisbin" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear All,
> I love these conversations about the last bastion of design education,
> the crit.
>
> I agree with many of the points raised surrounding this important
> learning forum, however i would like to add one other observation
> perhaps as somewhat of a provocation.
|