Hello Miles and colleagues
I am glad you brought this up, it obviously refers, once more, to the
confusion plaguing our field as I mentioned in one of my recent posts.
Since a couple of years ago, I suggested (not in a formal written paper
though) that at University (i.e. researching and teaching) level, we reserve
those categorizations and respective denominations to the practice sector of
our field. At an intellectual bird view rather, we ought to adopt and use
the concept behind the term "artifact", this term encompassing all material
and immaterial human production. The range of this human production is
endless as we all know, and such is the categorizations (industrial,
product, krafts, artistic, graphics, interior, third world, emergency, UG vs
PG, hand or computer aided draughtsmanship in 2D or 3D, etc. etc.) and
respective denominations that individuals or groups of individuals may chose
to focus on, based on the intended specific interest and practice.
In a second move, those particular denominations of meaning and practice may
as well be, eventually, subjected to intellectual scrutiny, if needed.
I leaved it up then to each practice individual and/or group to agree upon
first, and then tell us what are the "specifics" of their respective
practice in their respective "contexts and locations" as you say. Not
necessary an immediate answer, but a beginning at a rigorously reflected
sorting and clarifying of our field. Perhaps in upcoming seminars, fora and
congresses of practitioners in respective sub-fields. For instance, along
the lines of what David Sless has been - and still - doing within the
Communication research Institute in Australia. And ultimately, this may as
well contribute to, and thus make it at last really useful, the completion
of the Design Compendium/Glossary work (i.e. artifact) that Ken and Terry
started designing since a couple of years ago.
Francois
Montreal
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:26 AM, poylmer808 <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi all,
> Is anyone aware of any scholarly writing about the preference for the use
> of the terms 'Industrial Design' or 'Product Design' or otherwise - be it to
> describe professional practices, educational programs and regional
> differences? There appears to be a number of posts on such matters on
> various design forums, and these opinions are important, but is there any
> work out there that addresses the specifics of each, maps or compares what
> each term may mean and its differing perceptions in various contexts or
> locations?
>
> Miles
>
|