Dear Ken
are we looking at a new paradigm or an old complaint?
I can agree with everything that Don says and yet not feel that I have taken a single step forward.
Indeed, I now feel more on the outside of design education, even if I now know more about why I feel this way.
The unexamined life is not worth living, and so I am reconciled to my dissatisfactions even if I am becoming crankier day by day.
cheers in teh rain
keith
>>> Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]> 04/29/11 6:55 AM >>>
Friends,
Here, in my view at least, is the new paradigm.
It's been posted here before, but I'm posting it again for those that may not have read it.
If you recall, these recent threads trace back to Terry Love's note on UK standards for the design curriculum. These was possibly tiggered by the prior thread that went back to Don Norman's request for curriculum information.
The later thread wriggled away through metaphors to rhapsodies. We moved from a conversation on teaching design to a conversation on the words for different kinds of teaching. This devolved in turn to words game, abandoning the actual issues on how to teach as a general case and how to teach design in specific. When Francois Nsenga offered a thought that we might move beyond word games to the "Tao of Design" as a new paradigm, I thought it worth noting that there is a new paradigm already. In the long version, there are many ways to tell this.
One of the great short versions is Don Norman's Core77 blog post, "Why Design Education Must Change."
Ken Friedman
--
|