Terence,
I'm not entirely clear about what you're advocating, but it seems as though
you're saying design education would benefit if design history shifted more
to a theory-focused curriculum.
I agree that in order to advance design as a discipline, design education
would benefit hugely from more theory-based classes. However I'm not sure
the best way to do it is by removing the traditional historical perspective
from design history classes.
To use your example of art education, many fine arts programs I am familiar
with offer both art history and art theory as separate classes-- satisfying
separate needs in the curriculum.
History classes in both Art and Design disciplines provide students with
the historical development of movements throughout time and across cultures.
These classes also examine what factors influence movements such as
religion, politics, historical events and so on. With this understanding,
students are better able to position themselves (and their work) within the
context of what has come before them and are better equipped to critically
examine the choices they make with their own work.
While I agree wholeheartedly that we need more theory in design education
curriculum, I don't think we need to throw the design history baby out with
the bath water.
Regards,
Susana
-Sent via telephonular magic!
-----Original message-----
From: Terence Love <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 22:16:36 EDT
Subject: Design Education - Rethinking the role of Design History
Hello,
Erik's posting about Design History brings to attention its academically
rather weird position in university-based Design Education curricula.
Until relatively recently (since the 60s), Design education in Art and
Design has lacked theory foundations. Instead, it has used guidelines such
as 'contrast', 'repetition', 'colour wheel' etc combined with teaching
designers about what has been done in the past from examples, via Design
History courses..
In the non-academic craft context prior to Design being taught in
universities, teaching design history makes sense as a way of teaching
through examples of the work of others. In that craft design education
environment design history has a central role.
Design education in the Art and Design realm is now, however, a university
discipline with increased use of theory that encapsulates and provides
increased generalizable knowledge compared to observing past examples of
designed artefacts .
In university, subjects are taught without this dependence on reviewing
historical examples. All other disciplines in this academic context, focus
primarily on teaching theory, concepts and theory-based practices.
Historical issues are integrated into that teaching and hence, there is no
need for a purely historical course to be a major element in their
curricula. For example, If a course was teaching the use of Planck's
constant , it would occur in a theory course and, in focusing on the
theory, may in passing mention the historical knowledge that Planck
identified it in 1900. Certainly, the use of Planck's constant would not be
taught primarily via History course and the theory derived there. The same
framing happens in all academic subjects including History.
In the discipline of History in university, the educational use of
historical analyses differs from that common in Design . Educationally,
historical analysis typically offers three benefits: a) as a means of
teaching the skills of reasoning and critical thinking that engenders
awareness of and avoidance of fallacy and bias ; b) as a corrective to
current biases and false assumptions; and, c) as an exposure to the
development over time of social considerations. The latter, however, is
almost certainly more easily taught in ways other than by using history as
the primary frame.
It seems that design education is currently disadvantaged by using Design
History where more theoretically-based courses would be more appropriate,
and design education does not take advantage of the above three benefits of
using historical analyses in the Design History courses.
The above seems to suggest the transition of Design into university
requires changes to the balance of the curricula that reduces the role of
Design history as a primary means of design education. Part of that change,
as all other disciplines have discovered, is a significant reduction in
the role of historical examples in education. The requirement for
disciplines to develop theory is to improve efficiency and effectiveness in
teaching, learning, and professional practice. Experience in most areas of
design that have already made the transition to universities are that
designers who are taught primarily via generalizable theory constructs
rather than historical examples can design across more realms, do it more
reliably and better address design issues that are not contiguous with past
examples.
Taken together, it appears there is a need to rethink Design Education in
ways that have a much less central role for 'Design History', and, in
terms of the length of time Design education has now been a university
discipline, this rethinking would appear to be becoming overdue. The
potential benefits are better thinking, better skilled and more creative
design graduates with more employment opportunities. This, in practical and
ethical terms, would seem to trump the costs of avoiding rewriting curricula
and moving away from practices of an earlier era.
Best wishes,
Terence
==
Dr Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI
PhD, B.A. (Hons) Eng, P.G.C.E
School of Design and Art, Curtin University, Western Australia
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks, Western Australia 6030
<mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] +61 (0)4 3497 5848
==
|