Hello all


I agree with what Sally says about the artist's 'cocoa cola' billboard
that somehow becomes re-ified as art (not design)- that's a strange one
- it reminds me of how it can be argued that Duchamp - the acknowledged
first conceptual artist- could very likely have been inspired by Poiret
the couturier, who was working at the same time, producing copies of his
'original' fashion clothing designs, bearing his 'authentic' label, for
the burgeoning mass market in the early years of last century. There
have been many artists since then who have taken designers' thinking and
re-presented it as 'art'. (And vice versa- I think there is a mutual
exchange)


But back to today - and the point made by Gunnar and Sally, about the
art staff who may appear to think that graphic design or design
generally (?) is a debased version of art -- thats not what I get from
that situation at all - I think many artists are actually aspirational
designers: they are in the closet!


I have found that artists are very intimidated by Design ways of
thinking, because they don't understand it.


That's been my experience.


Fiona


 

Fiona Candy
see my projects at

www.a-brand.co.uk

Senior Lecturer
The Northern School of Design
University of Central Lancashire
Preston
PR1 2HE
Lancashire
UK

T: 00 44 (0)1772 893368
F: 00 44 (0)1772 892920
E: [log in to unmask]


>>> sally hollis-mcleod 13/06/10 1:41 PM >>>
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 merit*and many of us have mixed our
practices*but 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 way¹ 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: ³Don¹t think
you
will get a job in a design studio if you don¹t do this/do that/don¹t
know
your programs/don¹t 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 Studio¹ to threaten a student with beggars
belief.
One thing that does interest me: when painting graduates get design
work*even a coca-cola billboard*such a crowing goes up; as if this
somehow
proves something very profound!

We can learn from each-other¹s thinking, if it is in a spirit of
equality.

Sally Hollis-McLeod
New Zealand