Terry,
On Jan 23, 2012, at 11:30 PM, Terence Love wrote:
> In fact, it can be
> seen as one of the original aims of the design methods movement to minimise
> design by making.
[snip]
> The conventional design practice in design fields that involve big
> investment, single shot projects, with high risk outcomes is to do as much
> of the information gathering, analysis, modelling and decision-making as
> possible before starting to define a design in its 'real world' form.
How is modeling different from process making?
> It suggests that if design schools wish to
> educate designers to be able to work in these realms, they will need to
> teach these design tools -
Without suggesting a narrowing of view, I am still confused about the basic assumption: Certain sorts of design are worthy and others are not; those unworthy others should convert their educational system to make those who aspire to unworthy activity become worthy.
> competent designer can create the layout and typesetting of a book,
> telephone directory, brochure by simply designing it.
I don't believe that the physical distance between North Carolina and Western Australia explains it. We're on different planets. I'm not sure that there is even an opening for real conversation here. I'll try to figure out how to bridge this one later.
> I suggest design
> practices that initially make things to see what goes wrong are primarily
> to create the learning opportunities for the designer to acquire the
> knowledge and skills so that the final design is satisfactory. In other
> words, the designer is incompetent to do the design when starting it and
> during much of the process.
How does this aspect of practice differ from research?
> the learning, information
> gathering (including modelling), analyses, major design decisions and
> acquisition of competence occur outside and prior to the action of creating
> the specifications for implementing the design.
Maybe part of this is a terminology problem. Failing quickly avoids failing big. I don't know anyone who advocates moving ahead at full speed and being surprised that the sea is full of icebergs.
But I'm still wondering why you seem to assume that information gathering, modeling, and analysis are good and are a separate class from making.
> Rather, the problem seems to be more a lack of
> attention by design schools and designers to the existing best design
> practices and the necessary technical and mathematical competence for
> designers to understand and use them.
Is this where I should decry the poor typographic background of engineers who design nuclear reactors? The message (not just in this post but generally throughout your comments) seems to be that *real* designers want to do what you think proper, grown-up people do. How do fashion designers deal with being deficient? They are, after all, not properly trained to design social intervention projects involving military commitments.
Since my original question had more to do with education than with practice, let me ask an education question: Should we tell students in advance that we have better plans for their lives than they have or should we just surprise them with their new careers?
Gunnar
----------
Gunnar Swanson
East Carolina University
graphic design program
http://www.ecu.edu/cs-cfac/soad/graphic/index.cfm
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
1901 East 6th Street
Greenville NC 27858
USA
[log in to unmask]
+1 252 258 7006
http://www.gunnarswanson.com
|
