Hi David,
I think we are seeing things very similarly on this. You describe the
situation better. Your message raises two points and I'll respond to the
second one in a separate email.
I agree with you that for designers that craft their design solutions, their
design activities and processes are shaped by the reality of their craft and
the techniques they have available to them. An example, when silver was only
available as a soft material, there were a specific range of design methods
that were appropriate. The advent of stronger and stiffer silver alloys
provide the basis for new design processes that enable new types of designs.
(BTW I'd love to get my hands on a bit of Argentium to see how it compares
with other strong malleable alloys!)
My personal design experiences confirm your comments. My initial work in
design was very hands on - very much in the style advocated by Chris Rust. I
would manufacture my designs and they would provide inspirations for new
ways of looking at things and inspirations for new and better designs. My
designs and design methods were very much based on deep experience of
working with materials.
The approach was way too slow and I found I was impatient with it. Computers
and design methods helped speed things up to get to better designs! At the
end of the day, however, what was designed and how it was designed was
limited by the tools of design and manufacture. Some of these tools were the
tools of craft and manufacture, others were tools for design thinking.
In my post to Erik I was suggesting that there are strong links between the
tools designers use (abstract, craft and computerised), the design processes
they use and the designed outcomes they produce.
I can't think of an example that this linkage doesn't apply. If you know of
examples, I'd love to hear about them.
Warm regards,
Terry
===
Dr. Terence Love, PhD, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM
Tel/Fax: +61 (0)8 9305 7629
Mobile: +61 (0)434 975 848
[log in to unmask]
www.love.com.au
===
Terry
David wrote:
Much of what you say simply doesn't fit my understanding
either of design education nor the advances that are being made in the
best design practices. And it certainly does not fit with the
intensely hands-on subject specialisms such as fashion, crafts,
jewellery, ceramics, glass and so on.
...
One example of counter argument - and one that I believe is a much
more serious issue - is the loss of understanding of 3D form, texture,
and user handling through the unthinking use of CAD tools. As an
external examiner I have seen so many examples of undergraduate
students using sophisticated CAD tools and producing product designs
that look terrific in the visuals, and seem convincing at a certain
level, but would be quite impossible or difficult to manufacture or
use. ...
The more weakly creative students - those who find it difficult
to think in the round about designing - will always resort to
glittering tools to produce designs that on the surface are
attractive, but that's often as far as it goes. The better designers
are not 'dominated' by the technical tools, they use them as
extensions to their creativity.
|