The problem is in the article: "*The* history of design" is, of course, a nonsense phrase. You can teach *a* history of design but what history you teach should depend on why you're teaching it.
One of my objections to certain sorts of histories of design that get taught is that they are justified as broadly and intrinsically valid but are often populated entirely by design students who are required to take the class. Nobody asks why this is a class for and of design students rather than, say psychobiology students or hotel management students.
Just as one might ask of any class "What use is this class to undergraduates at the University of XYZ"?, it is worth asking "What history of design would be worthwhile for the design students (assuming they are design students) who will be taking this class (and why wouldn't they get more value taking some other class instead)?"
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
|