On Aug 22, 2012, at 6:13 PM, Ken Friedman wrote:
>
> This thread involves the value of history. When Don speaks of hating history as a student, it doesn’t sound to me as though the quality of instruction is the issue. Rather, the issue is getting information with the appropriate timing that enables people to turn abstract information into integrated knowledge that they can use effectively in professional development and professional practice.
Point taken. I do think this is a quality of instruction issue, however, in that I would be a very poor quality instructor if I paid too much attention to what my students were "most interested" in learning (to borrow Don's language). A lot of my students engage in international, social impact-focused initiatives, and they really don't *feel like* spending class time talking about things like imperialism and globalization--both historically-bound phenomena, of course, and both directly informing quite a bit of the students' design activity.
However, as their instructor, I'm there to help them anticipate the obstacles and critiques they may encounter as professionals. I would certainly be remiss if I didn't compel them to at least consider how their work fits into these broader historical frameworks. If they are ready to design for social impact, they are ready to think about how and why they design for social impact, what that means, and from whence it comes. Or, to put it another way: I think it is irresponsible (now borrowing Victor's term) for designers engaging in these kinds of initiatives to NOT consider the very real effects of history on their work and on their world views. So I press on.
Best,
Arden Stern, Ph.D. Visual Studies
Teaching Fellow, Art Center College of Design
|