Dear Geoff,
Thank you for your message
You wrote: "I agree that design is not art, but there is art in design, as
there is, by definition, in all intelligent, skilful
activities."
I'm suggesting that the view of design and art and the relationships between
them that has been found in the literature of the last 50 or so years is
relatively naïve and simplistic. It seems to be time for the field to move
forward.
If we look more carefully and wholly, it is possible to take a long step
beyond the current ways of seeing design. Clarifying the picture of design
makes it possible to see deep differences between designers and artists
doing apparently the same tasks. To do this, depends on avoiding
unconsciously assuming that design activities should be interpreted through
the language and ideas of Art. This is simply a matter of clear thinking
rather than science/rationalism.
Designers undertake designerly activities. Many of these designerly
activities are intelligent and skilful. All aspects of these designerly
activities can be fully explained in ways that do not require referring to
Art. I'm suggesting we, as design researchers and designers, lose the
potential for a better understanding of design if we unthinkingly take the
short cut of 'design is art' . It seems to me it's time for design
educators and designers to move on. The idea that Art can explain the depth
and breadth of design activity has had its day and no longer provides
sufficient explanation.
Best wishes,
Terry
|