Hi Terry.

I should make it clear that I'm a person who thirty years ago, school  
teachers labelled 'good at art'. (I imagine you were told you were  
'good at science').  That meant something to me then. And it does now.  
(But I've never been interested in being an artist, beyond the  
romantic idea that I might play for Liverpool or sing like Elton John).

But, I do value the way artists think, the work they do, and their  
motivation to make visible and exhibit (you might say 'disseminate')  
their work, as much as I recognise the artistry in great football or  
popular music. I actively seek out 'stages' where such performances  
take place. I acknowledge wholeheartedly that it is helpful to me in  
my work as a design practitioner, educator and researcher. Because,  
whenever I need to give form to an idea (visual or verbal) I cannot  
ignore the influence of art and artistry, amongst many other factors.

So I disagree with your point:

> I'm suggesting the influences of Art are especially unhelpful to the  
> 7% and
> merely generally unhelpful to the other 93%.

With regard to design research, (as opposed to my adolescent dreams),  
doing design research (as I've been training to do for the last six  
years or so) constantly refers me to the values more consistent with  
qualitative than quantitative approaches. What I learned at 'art  
school' has enabled me to identify comfortably with qualitative  
research. Had someone explained this to me in the early 80s, I  
possibly would have pursued a research career earlier than I did, and  
this is where I acknowledge your point (if I am interpreting it  
correctly). But this is more to do wider historical, education and  
political issues stretching back to the 1840s, than the privileging of  
'Art' in 'Art Schools' (and if 'Art Schools' cannot privilege Art, who  
should?).

I may be in the minority on this list in terms of people who identify  
with being told they were 'good at art' (please give me a show of  
hands if this means something to you). But most people I know who have  
been through an Art and Design foundation course in the UK, are able  
to make a clear distinction between Art and Design and appreciate the  
value of both, rather than see one as a threat to the other. They do  
this because they opted to apply for an undergraduate degree that was  
more one than the other. In the 1970-80s, and since, this generally  
meant choosing between Fine Art, 3D Design, Graphic Design or Textiles/ 
Fashion Design.

So when you say:

> One thing, some recent comments seem excessively protective of,  and  
> give
privilege to, Art over Design.

it should not be surprising that some are 'excessively protective'.  
You threaten the personal and professional identity of some people  
with your comments.

And yet, from my recent attempts to understand qualitative research,  
what 'artists' seem to do in their practice is closely aligned with  
approaches to qualitative research.

Art and Design education in the UK is dynamic at the moment, and  
attempting to embrace a widespread research culture. In my view 'Art  
and Design' educators have much to learn from more established  
research fields (as I know you have been keen to point out in the  
past). But we should be careful not to dismiss the influence of art on  
and in some design. I say this because I suspect there are still be  
many 16 year old pupils who are being told they are 'good at art'. If  
we try and continue to build an understanding of 'Arts Research',  
these pupils might also be good at Research.

Perhaps even Design Research.

Regards

Robert



On 10 Jun 2010, at 02:52, Terence Love wrote:

> Robert,
> You misunderstand me.
> I'm suggesting the influences of Art are especially unhelpful to the  
> 7% and
> merely generally unhelpful to the other 93%.
> One thing, some recent comments seem excessively protective of,  and  
> give
> privilege to, Art over Design.
> This provides some support for the first half of the suggestion -  
> that the
> general understanding of Design is corrupted by being reinterpreted  
> through
> the norms of Art.
> Best regards,
> Terry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Harland [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, 10 June 2010 6:36 AM
> To: Terence Love
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Design - the problem of Art
>
> So, Terry, being as you are now quoting percentages, is your initial
> point that Art is 'helpful' to 7% of Design disciplines but
> 'unhelpful' to the other 93% of Design disciplines? If so, that suits
> me fine (and others it seems), and I simply wonder why those who might
> be in the majority should be so concerned. I must admit I did have the
> impression from your initial email that you seem to be suggesting some
> kind of 'ethnic cleansing'. Or did I simply read too much into it?
> Robert.
>
>
> On 9 Jun 2010, at 17:13, Terence Love wrote:
>
>> Only 7% or so of Design disciplines are directly related to Art as
>> in the
>> UK's 'Art and Design' group.
>
>
>