I agree with Gunnar's comment:
"Fields like graphic design tend to be taught after a foundations program
that is taught by painters and the like. Students spend their first year
instructed by people who think that graphic design is just a debased version
of what they do fail to address thinking that is fundamental to graphic
design practice. graphic design programs are usually located in art
programs The role of art faculty often acts to the great detriment of
graphic design.²
I am a Graphic Designer/Educator and have been battling this for years. I do
agree that there can be some meritand many of us have mixed our
practicesbut it is the reasoning I hate. Chiefly the reason stated as "we
want them to open out, rather than close in" (i.e. thinking like
designers=closed, rigid thinking!!). The idea is, of course, proposed by
non-designers who hate the 'design wayı of thinking, without knowing
anything about it. Social engagement is one aspect of design thinking which
becomes marginalised in this environment. Actually thinking is another!
I admire design thinking and have known some wonderful design thinkers. I
find much art thinking in education very model-based.
Oh, and the ultimate art-educator put-down to new students: ³Donıt think you
will get a job in a design studio if you donıt do this/do that/donıt know
your programs/donıt work your butts off/etc². Knowing that they know little
of the scope or practice of design at this early stage, I prefer praise and
encouragement; they will grow in understanding and professionalism. Having
experienced exciting, collegial, working practices, why anyone would create
a spectre of a Design Studioı to threaten a student with beggars belief.
One thing that does interest me: when painting graduates get design
workeven a coca-cola billboardsuch a crowing goes up; as if this somehow
proves something very profound!
We can learn from each-otherıs thinking, if it is in a spirit of equality.
Sally Hollis-McLeod
New Zealand
|