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.
To the degree that critical inquiry does differ between the
universities of different eras, the issue distinguishes those that do
well in addressing the university research mission and those that do
not.
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 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.
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
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—
|