Don's views eerily echo Tony Fry's from more than twenty years ago.
Despite his focus on Australia, the critique remains relevant more
broadly. Briefly, he classifies much of the writing on design (at the
time) as 'celebratory, critical commentary or promotional rhetoric'
(p. 7), and identifies the following historical areas/practices as
problematic (my summary):
* historically, design responses to broader
social/national/political/economic needs can be seen as a series of
urgent 'natural design crises';
* the professional status of design and history of design promotion
(of the importance of design) is problematically insular and
self-congratulatory (design has a 'moral right' to exist as a stand
alone practice/discipline);
* conditions of connoisseurship and canonisation ('good design' does
not win by merit, mates' clubs and design awards, and so on); and
* the historical problem of art education 'doubling up' as design education.
For the full critique see:
Fry, T., 1988, Design History Australia, Hale & Iremonger, Sydney.
For a succinct version, see:
Fry, T., 2002, Approaches to the Historical Study of Design in
Australia, in M. Bogle (Ed), Designing Australia, Readings in the
History of Design, , Pluto Press Australia, Annandale, pp. 7-14.
cheers, teena
|