All,

While it may be wise to critically examine the affiliations between Art and Design; is it not equally important to examine the assumptions we hold regarding the sister disciplines that have contributed to the scientific underpinnings of design?  It seems that the importance of our ability as designers "...to accurately predict the behavior of a designed outcome in part and whole." should be equally carefully assessed.  Since we owe much to the foundations proffered us by social science it would seem of equal moment to discern the legitimacy and capacity of the scientific structures which have been woven into design from these quarters.  It seems particularly significant to note that the theoretical structures of design which have emerged from the application of the principles of social science are severely limited in their ability to "...predict...outcomes...."  
 
The social sciences are founded in a a construct which has some serious limitations of reasoning according to the Philosopher Alexander Rosenberg in his book "A Philosophy of Social Science;" since the processes of social science are largely built upon the relationship between belief, desire and action (behavior) , and since the only way to assess this relationship is to work backwards from behavior to desire and belief, the process is somewhat circular in nature and has been frequently shown to be a poor predictor of future behaviors.
 
This situation seems to be more indicative of a larger issue than one of the interrelationships between or mutual contributions among disciplines.  What seems more the issue here is not the value of the relationship between Art and Design, but rather points to the need to develop a metaphysical definition for design itself.  As an interior designer I have witnessed the attempts of my sub-discipline to define itself over-ageist architecture, to its detriment in my opinion.  It seems to me that it would be of greater value to better define what is it that we do (metaphysics) and the structure of that knowledge (epistemology) and appropriate processes of reasoning (logic), than to focus upon a dissection of the disciple with an eye toward excising parts that might seem to paint us in a light which we do not find favorable. 

Sincerely,

Justin Wilwerding,
Interior Design Department Chair,
Brown College,
E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
Phone: 651.905.3592
________________________________________
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Terence Love [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 10:53 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Design - the problem of Art

Hi Chuck,

It's possible to go beyond the old 'rationalist-artistic' two worlds divide
and try to look at things more directly. My earlier post attempted to do
this in looking at how Design has been limited by its 'taken for granted'
relationship to Art.

Part of doing looking at things more directly is to identify embedded
perspectives and in this case, the focus is on the 'taken for granted'
privilege that has been given in some areas of Design to Art and the
Humanities. This is a different issue to suggesting the alternative is
science.

Underlying this issue is the  problem that we observe things and then
compulsively attribute causes.

For example, you wrote: ".. imagine what designing and its products would
"look like"  without the emotional, cultural, and human centered delight..."
This makes good accurate and meaningful sense.
You then attribute the cause to 'artful' designing.  Do you really means
that that is the only possible explanation? Why not 'skilled designing',
'good designing', 'sound design research', 'empathy', 'personal sensitivity'
and many other human attributes. To insist it is only explained by being
'artful' suggests Art is a privileged reason  and suggests 'Design' is an
incomplete, insufficient activity, secondary to 'Art'. In Australia, this
sort of way of looking at things is known as 'the cultural cringe'.

Later you wrote: "... look at the new  iphone4 and its functionalities in
comparison to its competitors to  realize that some "designers" (or design
centered organizations) can  bridge the gulf between technology and the
humanities..."

First, if you stand back away and completely put aside the advertising hype
and myths and look simply, you can see that the main attribute of Apple is
to produce products that can be used effectively by people who don't have
high levels of  technical skills or understanding and at the same time boost
their confidence in using the products to get good results. This is a great
designerly project and wonderful contribution to the world that helps reduce
the inequalities caused by technology.  It requires high levels of design
skill from an organisation. This is a matter of understanding humans and the
ways they use things. It is over-privileging the field of Humanities to say
that this design activity is dependent on a bridge being made to Humanities.
Many designers can do this kind of work without knowing even 0.01% of the
knowledge available in the Humanities. To privilege the Humanities is
unnecessary. It's also distracting from understanding the design activity. I
suggest the aesthetic, sympathetic and empathic skills you refer to are
characteristic of, and specific to, Design activity, and different from
those used in Art - because their purposes are different.

I'd like to feel we agree that (as you put it well) it is helpful to have '
an openness to new experiences, ideas and forms  of expression'.

I'm suggesting there are benefits to reconsidering assumptions about the
taken for granted relationship between Design and Art and the Humanities.
Viewing the situation with an open mind, indicates Design is crippled by
current relationships with Art and Humanities rather than enhanced.

I'm suggesting it is possible to stand back and see some of the problems of
Design being beholden to Art. Doing this, some of the problem areas that
stand out are in crippling Design in terms of  theory, techniques and
research methods. Thinking about your email also suggests the field of
Design has its own versions of understanding of areas such as aesthetics
that are presumed  core knowledge of Art. Hence, assuming Art is the only
source of understanding of aesthetics cripples Design practice on this score
too.

Warm regards,
Terry

PS thanks for your advice about the Prius!


-----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 Charles
Burnette
Sent: Wednesday, 9 June 2010 9:54 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Design - the problem of Art

On Jun 8, 2010, at 10:09 PM, Terence Love wrote:

> Four questions:
>
> *     Are designers and design researchers indoctrinated with the wrong
> skill set and concepts due to unhelpful influences by those in Art?
> *     Are we prepared to critically review the way that Design has been
> unhelpfully influenced by Art?
> *     What would Design look like if all Art influenced were removed from
> it?
> *     Should Design as a matter of course be taught separately from Art?
> (In the way that one would expect say Spanish to be taught
> separately from
> Physics).

Terry,

It is probably true that designers and design researchers have been
inadequately educated for the range of skill sets and concepts they
should be able to employ. This should not cause us to look only at
those in Art for unhelpful influences.  However, If we only look for
unhelpful influences we miss what has been helpful.  Similarly, it is
not hard to imagine what designing and its products would "look like"
without the emotional, cultural, and human centered delight that
artful designing can impart. All one needs to do is look at the new
iphone4 and its functionalities in comparison to its competitors to
realize that some "designers" (or design centered organizations) can
bridge the gulf between technology and the humanities better than
others (and probably will always do so as long as they employ better
bridging abilities).  Also, why consider continuing to teach in silos
when the synthesis of skillsets, technologies, and understandings to
meet the needs, desires, satisfactions, and delights of human beings
is the objective? Finally, please reflect on how damaging it is to
value rationality over an openness to new experiences, ideas and forms
of expression as you develop the counter-arguments that your mindset
seems to favor.

You asked,
Chuck