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.
|