Terry
I agree with almost everything you say particularly with respect to
the training of doctoral students.
With regard to the quotes in question I would have preferred to
provide the whole book! I don't know why, but for some reason the
book opened on pages 94 and 95. In my view Pye's writing is still
relevant today
Of course things have moved on a bit since 1978. In Britain and
elsewhere the move of Art and Design to become part of the 'Academy'
is perhaps the most profound. Some aspects have been the growing
confidence and success in seeking funding from the research councils,
the establishment of a peer review system, and a lively design
research community [as opposed to an art and design research
community] of which PHD-Design is a fine example. One striking aspect
of this has been the speed and alacrity of 'design' postgraduate
students to recognise the value of engagement with a broad range of
academic disciplines. By so doing we can note a far greater depth and
enrichment of referencing and contextualising. Much has been learnt in
terms of methodology. However most of the 'knocking on the door' has
come from this side of the tracks, but recently I've noted traffic
coming back the other way. I think it augurs well for true
interdisciplinary collaborations in the future which can only benefit
the position you posited at the beginning of this thread. I guess, as
a caveat, as another correspondent mentioned, let us not throw the
baby out with the bath water.
As to the other name dropping I did - well an examination of their
work and in some cases their work practices provide valuable insights
don't you think? People like Glaser have made valuable contributions
to the higher education debate, may I refer colleagues, as an example,
to: REINVENTING UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION: A Blueprint for America’s
Research Universities. The Boyer Commission on Educating
Undergraduates in the Research University [the commission was
established in the mid 90s]:
http://naples.cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf/673918d46fbf653e852565ec0056ff3e/d955b61ffddd590a852565ec005717ae/$FILE/boyer.pdf
Finally I'll name drop just once more: Robert Bringhirst and three of
is books: The Elements of Typographic Style [2004]; Selected Poems
[2010]; & Everywhere Being is Dancing: Twenty Pieces of Thinking
[2007] Designer, Poet and Scholar - all in one skin.
Best wishes
Terence Kavanagh
On 14 Jun 2010, at 16:13, Terence Love wrote:
> Dear Terence,
>
> Thank you for your message.
> I suggest the approach you put forward is unhelpful to addressing
> the issue
> of the relationship between Design and Art.
> There are many people, some of them famous designers, who have
> written that
> Design and Art are linked.
> Simply saying something - no matter how famous the author - does not
> make it
> true, correct or accurate. It's simply their personal opinion -
> regardless
> of how famously they are viewed and respected. This is a basic
> position in
> any academic research. If the authors are academically competent, they
> should be able to say exactly how Design and Art are linked in ways
> that
> provide sound proof or reasoning that will stand up to the standards
> of
> reasonable scrutiny common in other academic fields. So far this
> kind of
> reasoning and analysis about the relationship between Design and Art
> has
> been mostly absent in the design research literature.
> Most of the writing about the relationship between Design and Art-
> as in the
> quotes you give - is superficial personal speculation without
> evidence or
> justified reasoning. This kind of writing is more often than not
> less than
> useful because it distracts Design PhD candidates into believing
> that it
> provides is justifiable standards of theory and evidence
> If design research is to move on and become a realistic academic
> research
> endeavour , I suggest it is necessary for the theory and theory
> literature
> of Design research to move beyond personal opinion and name
> dropping. It's
> another aspect of Art culture that continues to compromise Design
> and design
> research as professional fields.
>
> On a practical tack in terms of training doctoral students, it seems
> helpful
> to ask them to never use quotes. The response sequence is predictable:
>
> 1. 'We were taught to use quotes all the time in undergraduate'
>
> 2. 'How do you write things in your own words? What is a précis? How
> do you
> know whether you are correct and right or wrong?
>
> 3. The start of reasoning skills
>
> 4. 'Why didn't we learn this in undergraduate or Honours?
>
> I can understand that there is a huge body of design literature that
> follows
> exactly the same direction that you have proposed. It hasn't led to
> a sound
> body of PhD level theory in Design. Carefully reviewing the
> situation seems
> to suggest that substantial changes are needed. One of the most
> fruitful
> changes that seems to offer the best leverage in terms of removing
> the
> largest number of problems, is for Design education develop its own
> culture
> and identity separate from Art culture and education methods.
>
> Best wishes,
> Terry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
> related
> research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Terence
> Kavanagh
> Sent: Monday, 14 June 2010 5:17 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: art and design.
>
> Colleagues
>
> Just to return to the beginning of this thread:
>
> David Pye in 'The Nature and Aesthetics of Design' [Barrie and
> Jenkins,
> London. 1978] is worth consideration in this respect. It's still, I
> believe, a great read.
>
> "Design is neither a problem-solving activity nor an art. It is
> both. All
> arguments about what designers ought to do seem bedevilled by the
> habit of a
> mind which thinks 'either...or'
> either all intuition or all logic, either all artist or all problem
> solver.
> This is extremism, and extremism in any cause whatever, good or bad,
> is
> evil". [p.94]
>
> and....
>
> "But many times the two parties to the controversy, the artist and the
> problem solver, are both together in one skin. Every good designer
> is made
> up of both. Nor does he think of art as God and problem solving as
> Mammon,
> but thinks of the two as inseparable parts of one whole, like the
> mind and
> body of man, each dependent on each other and each affecting the
> other. He
> does not think there is room for both. He knows there is need,
> absolute
> necessity for both". [p.95]
>
> and off the top of my head.....
>
> I reckon that Lowey; Glaser; Montezemelo [not strictly a designer-
> more a
> design leader]; Sotsass; Ive; Mellor; Koolhass; Hewlett; Miyake;
> Wrikkala;
> Day [Lucienne and Robin] to name a tiny few, would agree.
> [You won't have difficulty adding your own favourites to the list!].
>
> Best wishes
>
> Professor Terence Kavanagh
> Dean of Faculty for Social Sciences and Humanities
> Chair of Design and Applied Arts
> Loughborough University
>
> PS: As with most design schools in the UK we are holding our
> undergraduate
> degree shows and I refer you to the web-sites:
> http://www.lboro.ac.uk/service/publicity/degreeshows/ &
> http://www.twentytendesign.co.uk/
>
> and...
>
> I strongly recommend:
>
> http://pmbryan.com/
>
>
|