Hi Jean,

I couldn't agree with you more.

The troika Ethics, Technics and Aesthetics seem to be a distinctive 
characteristic of Design and if you came to think about it, is common to 
the Arts in general. The proportions between the three may fluctuate but 
they must be all three, present in Art.

My PhD thesis was about Virtue, a key concept in the Renaissance that 
moved through the three domains from the early 1400's to the late 
1580's. The agent of this movement was a new concept called "Disegno" 
(signs in action). I strongly believe that Design related to the Arts 
(very different from Design as Designation or whish) was an 
Anglicization of Disegno. And so our oldest ancestors were the Good, the 
Bad and the Ugly (Beautiful) of Art totally committed with social 
renovation in a troubled period (like ours).

It is interesting that we both are natives of a neo Latin Language that 
imported the word "Design" recycled through English, as if it was born 
only in industrialization in full Modernity.

In fact we imported Design because our words were obsolete to 
"designate" new emerging professions that didn't want to be considered 
lower in Sociaety than Architecture or Engineering, for instance. Only 
in 1976 a State University Course was designated as "Design" in Portugal 
(after IADE started a free course in 1969). And only a couple of years 
ago, "Design" was considered an activity for the IRS! As you may imagine 
there were already lots of people doing it and using it in theirs 
business cards...

But the word that we imported was not design, the human capacity to 
foresee, plan and execute projects, we imported Design, the art of doing 
everyday objects Ethically, Aesthetically with Technical viability. It 
would be interesting to know who else imported Design and meaning what. 
(or read the proceedings of the last ICDHS conference in OSAKA)

Cheers,

Eduardo

PS: How would Design look like if expunged from Art? It would look like 
Queiroz's Portugal opposed to Scolari's Portugal



On 14-06-2010 22:27, Jean Schneider wrote:
> Dear Eduardo and all
>
>> (or do you think that Pollock was a Sufi priest with sprinklers in 
>> his vest?)
> That's it ! He started studying hydrodynamics and went mystical ?
>>
>> So my partial conclusion would be: Design is an Art different from 
>> the other Arts but since Design is so concentrated in doing projects, 
>> it is vital to be near the other Arts for the other Arts' sake.
>>
>> But why, in Design interest, should Design be near to the other Arts?
>>
>> So let's go back to Argan. Creating problems versus solving problems.
>>
>> In his sentence Art and Architecture (and Design) share a common 
>> passion: problems. And I modestly would add: Human Problems. You 
>> don't normally find Engineering students discussing Soren 
>> Kierkegaard's work but you find Art students doing it, a lot. Yet, 
>> they also discuss if plywood will last more than a few years looking 
>> good or if red is a symbol of masculine power.
>
> While I do think and support the idea that some of the design process 
> / field / discipline (?) deserves a theory in its own right, I don't 
> think that a "unified theory" will be of any interest. The "energy" of 
> design comes from the fact that it is pervasive, carried by 
> personalities as much as schools of thought, and diverse. And, in my 
> view, it remains to be proven on which ground the 700+ fields that 
> were listed somehow share enough commonalities to justify a unified 
> theory. Say, that would be equivalent to making a unified theory of 
> Art that would encompass all forms of Music, crafts, performing arts 
> and litterature, fine arts from the caves to contemporary art, and 
> across all cultures etc. Not uninteresting, as much for its 
> generalization and its shortcomings.
>
> If I had to make a bold and brutal choice, say : should we open the 
> design school in the art or in the design faculty, my first choice 
> would be : why not in Architecture, but my second would rather support 
> Eduardo's view.
>
> Not that I don't think that (some) engineers wouldn't discuss 
> Kierkegaard. But their curriculum (at least : when looking at it in 
> the continuity of the primary and secondary education, which are 
> normative rather than anything else) is very unlikely of putting them 
> to take positions. There is not much discussion about ethics in 
> design, there is even less in engineering. And this doesn't go very 
> far in terms of actions, does it ?
> And, let's face it : rationality is an essential, but just a partial 
> way of transforming the world; if one includes in transforming the 
> world the process of decision making.
>
> In pragmatic terms, where would the debate take us ? I want to insist 
> on the fact that I do think that reflecting on the commonalities and 
> differences between art/architecture/engineering/design is interesting 
> and valuable from a scholar perspective. There is a lot to study there 
> from, say, a historical and constructivist perspective. Fine for all 
> those that will do PhDs (if the PhD becomes again what it should have 
> remained : academical research for future professors).
> But when it comes to educating students, do we need people with more 
> formalised skills, or do we need people who are not afraid of engaging 
> into dialogue, who pay attention to the other ? What is the kind of 
> professionals that our world needs most ? The level of complexity of 
> the problems that we have to tackle in the close future cannot be 
> resolved by a few, however experts they might be. They must also be 
> endorsed by a large number of people who will commit themselves as 
> persons. In other words, do we need "skilled chefs" or "good hosts" 
> for having a nice party ?
> It is surprising to read clichés about artists saying that they are 
> filled with their ego, and do not go towards "the other". I believe 
> that those who write this are stupid. What is an exhibition, or a 
> performance if it is not the very act of putting yourself, and all of 
> yourself, in front of the Other, the most unfamiliar one ?
> And one last point : note that, in today's world, all other schools 
> but art schools cultivate, in a way or another, power and greed. An 
> art school is one of the few places in education nowadays where 
> practice is disconnected, for 5 years, from the perspective of your 
> neighbour being your competitor. And, believe it or not, who is fit 
> for survival in a changing world : art students and artists. Thanks to 
> them, cities gain life ("creative class"), social cohesion is enhanced 
> (artists in residence) etc.
>
> This is why I think that, when we put aside the formal discussion and 
> reason in terms of education (who are the citizens we have the mission 
> to grow), design should remain close to art, keeping the divide alive.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jean
> PS / I have been told that the new balls are so "perfectly spherical" 
> that they have somehow an unpredictable behavior. This leaves some 
> hope for France.