Dear Keith,
That is a very rich description of why both artists and designers may be fearful of the transformation of their practices into theory, and hence "discipline" as the academy would have it. Thanks for that.
Another modern example, by the way, is fiction writing. As an author myself, I'm of the view that one can indeed apprentice to a writer and one can indeed become better at the craft.
I don't think a Ph.D. should be offered in creative writing, whereas it should be offered in literary theory, literary history, and literary criticism (perhaps others as well). Meanwhile, the Master of Fine Arts (as we have it in the U.S. ) is a superb degree for writers if working with, and under, good writers.
My observation has been less eloquent that yours. It's more Austin Powers than Blake, namely, "They'll steal my mojo!"
The funny thing about scientists is that they don't fear this. Yes, someone else might "get there" first, or worse, a competing theory may win out, and all that bother, but there isn't a sense of being redundant as soon as one becomes proficient. In fact, I'm argue that serious scientists, upon achieving a certain level of expertise, realize how rare indeed they are in the world, and how much value they can offer.
I hope designers get there too. I don't think all design practice should be elevated to theory, just as I'm not convinced that the art of writing can be taught, whereas the craft indeed can be (I'm thinking of John Gardner here, who was divine at teaching this). But just as one can practice writing or study it as literature, I see a future when design too may need to grow comfortable with its duality, just as the productiion of literature is not, and need not be informed by, the theory of it. And so too can great historians and theorists exist on writing without even trying their hand at the craft.
d.
_________________
Dr. Derek B. Miller
Director
The Policy Lab
321 Columbus Ave.
Seventh Floor of the Electric Carriage House
Boston, MA 02116
United States of America
Phone
+1 617 440 4409
Twitter
@Policylabtweets
Web
www.thepolicylab.org
On Tuesday, March 29, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Keith Russell wrote:
> Dear Derek
>
> I agree with your complaints - ambivalence is prevalent - acculturation
> is the man way of addressing the problem.
>
> And, there are very subtle reasons for these lingering inhibitions to
> the development of design as an academic filed of relevance.
>
> The suggestion you make about "crafting solutions" is one entry point
> to the deconstruction of the monster. In crafting we generally allow a
> high level of technique, that is, knowledge that is made evident in the
> practice but is not readily transferable or amenable to formula or
> theory. Indeed, we can structure the argument such that to talk of
> technique is to talk of a range of skills that are observable,
> repeatable and transferable through the long and slow methods of
> apprenticeship.
>
> For strange historical reasons, technology became the objects and
> processes that embody technique - that is, the study of technique
> (ology) became instead the machines that were constructed out of an
> analysis of how craftspeople crafted things. We can think of a modern
> example to exemplify this operation. Think of car spray painting as a
> technique held by an expert that has then been transferred, through
> robotic modeling, to a machine.
>
> This transfer has been accomplished for many craft practices, but not
> all. Much of the resistance to theory in creative fields such as art and
> design arises from the fear that transferable knowledge will be found
> and hence the designer's craft techniques will be made redundant (think
> of desktop publishing and automatic kerning) and from the realization
> that the underlying craft skills are best protected by keeping what
> might be know a secret (think of guilds).
>
> Then there is the world of craft knowledges that communities resist
> elaborating because a fuller understanding of how things happen in
> society would upset existing status arrangements. If we knew who in the
> room was the person who tapped the dish and brought about the
> crystallization of the solution then we might have to rearrange the deck
> chairs and worse, we would be seen to be beholden to their "magic" skill
> (think of Marilyn Whirlwind, the native Alaskan receptionist in Northern
> exposure).
>
> We fumble, we stumble, we are awkward. But, we could know lots and lots
> and lots more about what we do and what others do but do we really want
> to know? The moral urgency about current world events is no good reason
> for us to become more human; rather, the urgency is a sure guarantee
> that we are being human enough. Besides which, as Blake would have it,
> devils are the go-to people for answers.
>
> cheers
>
> keith russell
> OZ newcastle
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > "Derek B. Miller" <[log in to unmask]> 03/30/11 3:56 AM >>>
> Dear Harold,
>
> When people tell me they are involved in a practice, it means to me
> that they are involved in an activity that has a beginning, middle and
> end (even if the end is a new beginning); and that the practice is
> distinguishable from other practices.
>
> The challenge I have with design taken to be "writ large" is that it
> becomes indistinguishable as practice. There are other words, for
> example, that also suggest processes of deliberate creation, and indeed
> the word "create" is one of them. As is formulate or craft. Surely, we
> all craft solutions.
>
> I understand you've been at this for decades, so I don't want to pick a
> fight, but coming in rather new to the field from a position outside it,
> I do see a few patterns:
>
> 1. That the field of design is struggling to estabilish itself as an
> academic discipline, but is ambivalent about the development of theory
> to explain and distinguish itself
>
> 2. That the everyday term "design" in English is regularly confused
> with the discipline of design, and the practice of design, whether by
> professional "designers" or people whom we impute to be designing. This
> intellectual confusion seems so native to the conversations that I fear
> people are becoming acculturated to it rather than aggrevated by it, and
> therefore endeavoring to offer a remedy (and it begs the question of how
> this addressed by scholars and practitioners working on design in
> languages that provide other forms of differentiation to be made)
>
> 3. That "design thinking" isn't making much of an inroad among people
> working on peace and security issues, because innovation and harnessing
> creativity just is not viewed as the issue. However, design processes,
> such as modeling, prototyping, simulating, co-designing and other
> practices are capturing the imaginations of some key people because they
> are very concerned indeed about A) how existing knowledge is not
> becoming manifest in project/programming solutions and B) how to form
> new cooperative opportunities that take us beyond debate or
> deliberation.
>
> I did not mean to suggest * if I did * that design is limited to a
> small set of activities. But to answer the question, "aren't we doing
> this already?" with a statement of potential value, one does need to
> propose (in my view) sets of actions that are accomplishable,
> distinguishable, and useful to existing social processes.
>
> derek
> _________________
> Dr. Derek B. Miller
> Director
>
> The Policy Lab
> 321 Columbus Ave.
> Seventh Floor of the Electric Carriage House
> Boston, MA 02116
> United States of America
>
|