Thanks Ken. My initial thoughts ...
On 7 Oct 2011, at 10:47, Ken Friedman wrote:
> Dear Rob,
>
> The important point here is critical inquiry. This is not a difference
> between pre-92 and post-92 universities, but between the “art and
> design” art school approach to design and the design science approach
> to design.
I'm wondering if critical inquiry, then, is both internal and external. When one creates art, does a process of self-critique occur. When designing, does one critique the motive of others?
-snip-
> But where it comes to design schools in particular, I’d argue that
> the problem lies with those that see design practice as “arts
> based,” rather than seeing design practice as a service profession
> with a richer range of responsibilities to clients, customers, and end
> users than to the artist creator of an artifact.
>
>
> The difference between art and design is simple. As artists, we serve
> ourselves. As designers, we serve those who own the problems that we are
> asked to help solve.
I understand this simple approach, but personally, I'm wondering why the problem lies with the arts? I favour the 'service profession' approach. That's why I chose design and not art. But by serving ourselves, do we not serve others in the dissemination of the outcomes, and vice-versa? Perhaps I have difficulty with the 'me or you' approach and favour a 'me and you'. No doubt there is a more articulate way to say this.
>
> I feel reasonably confident speaking to both points, since I am an
> artist with work in two current exhibitions in New York, one at the
> Museum of Modern Art, the other at the New York University Grey Art
> Gallery. As a designer, I’d also have to say that my art is free,
> speculative, and – I hope – interesting precisely because I do serve
> myself. As a designer, if I fail to serve others, I fail to do my job.
I'm struggling to see how these are not connected beyond the economy of language use (art or design), though I understand that some practitioners will be more introspective than others. I see this as a continuum between the internal and external.
>
> Where it comes to design, the issues at stake have been clear for the
> past two decades. I tend to agree with Don on the challenges we face. My
> own entry to this debate is available at:
>
> http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/189707
I'll have a look at this Ken before further responding. But at a glance, I should add that I trained in information design in a School of Art & Design. As such, I have no aspiration to produce 'arts based' design. If I did, I'd simply call it art, as I suspect you do.
> Warm wishes,
>
> Ken
>
> Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished
> Professor | Dean, Faculty of Design | Swinburne University of Technology
> | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] | Ph: +61
> 39214 6078 | Faculty
>
>
> Robert Harland wrote:
>
> —snip—
>
> From the very beginning, I was encouraged to undertake research
> training courses provided by the Graduate School, and the choice was
> wide-ranging. A quick glance back at what I elected to do in the early
> phase is listed below, the only compulsory course being the ‘Tradition
> of critique’.
>
> … It was bewildering to me, despite my experience in industry. But. I
> began to understand how established research subjects nurtured their
> future PhD students.
>
> Would you agree that in ‘art school’ based design education the
> emphasis has seemed to be on linking BA and Masters, rather than Masters
> and Doctoral level studies. Its often quoted that traditionally the
> terminal degree for art and design is MA, and this is consistent of
> those tutors who taught you and me.
>
> I wonder if this is a critical point of recent historical
> differentiation between pre/post 92 Universities in the UK, between art
> school/academia, between independent/co-dependent disciplines, between
> immature/mature research cultures.
>
> Of course, in the approach I experienced there was little empathy with
> the tradition of inquiry in arts based ‘design practice’, so there
> is an balance to be struck. But, does here lie one of the important
> challenges for the future of research in arts based education.
>
> —snip—
|