Dear Ken and all
In your last comment addressed to Klaus on the issue of Human=centered vs
Universe-centred perspectives while designing, you wrote:
"Our field suffers from the fact that too many vocationally trained
designers know far less than they should compared to what an educated
professional designer ought to know."
I am quite aware that, under the same subject heading, it would have been
oblique for you to expand on this point. That is why I here propose, under
a different heading, to look more closely into the training of all those
claiming to be 'designers', those claiming to exercise the 'design'
profession.
Perhaps the issue is not that "too many vocationally trained designers know
far less than they should". Maybe, as I previously hinted at, the confusion
that our field suffers started 5-6 decades ago, when little thought was
given to the upgrading of vocational schools into 'universities'.
Universities are Western-made 'artifacts', originally meant to concentrate
on developing knowledge related to universals, initially (and exclusively?)
human-centered. Concern on nature/physical universe-centered universals
arouse years later... And then, in the much more recent upgrading process
of vocational and artisans (guild and studio based) schools into
vocational/poly/technical schools/universities, many aspects were
considered except the essential: that is the kind of universals that
trainees were to learn in relation to their respective
practical/artifactual vocations (as opposed to previously more
contemplative, declarative, and discursive professions, much more clearly
defined).
In my view, questions that were skipped while instituting, for instance, a
poly - technic school specializing in knowledge/skills related to... let's
say, shoes, are of the following kind: should the concentration at the
institution be ONLY in human-centered universals related to shoe making? to
shoe socio-cultural exchanges? shoe wearing? Or ONLY in nature-centered
universals of shoe materials? of shoe making machinery? of shoe mechanical
and chemical functioning and wear? Or BETTER, the poly-technical
institution ought not be dealing with knowledge related to a certain mix of
both human and natural universals, ONLY those universals - and particulars,
when needed - related to making and using shoes (i.e. the 'doing' in one
of my previous posts)?
Additionally, the confusion is not only in what we are supposed to learn in
polytechnics/vocational universities. The other major cause of confusion I
have already hinted at in several occasions is the now world dominant, yet
vague, English term of 'design'. This term doesn't help to sort out and
convey the different nuances between who is a skilled laborer, an artisan,
a technician, an artist, a draughtsperson, and a university "educated
professional". In English, they each and all claim to be designers...now
together with anyone else involved in..."design thinking", somehow pursuing
all kinds of purposes other than making and using material artifacts.
For both reasons above, I therefore wonder whether it is a matter of
'knowing more or less', as you mention in your post, or rather a matter of
knowing, first, what are the most appropriate skills to the expertise that
one wishes to engage into and develop; and second, a matter of knowing how
to convey more clearly what each of us is precisely trained to do, or what
one seeks to be trained for.
In order to best deal with this confused and confusing situation, perhaps
we should start first by devising and distinguishing curricula in order to
impart each learner what she/he should be learning in a given and specified
institution. In my mind, training in knowledge related to universals
pertaining to artifacts making and use is not the same as training in
skills/crafts to merely manufacture those artifacts. And instead of calling
'design' all of those skills and crafts, plus the 'universal' knowledge
related to making and using artifacts, and some mental productions in
between, called "design thinking", shouldn't we explicitly designate each
of the essence of what we do by the way of proper terms and/or expressions.
The old categorizing qualifiers of 'fashion' design, 'industrial' design,
'graphic' design, 'engineering' design, etc. do not, in my view, convey
clear enough meaning that dissipates the actual confusion. Why not then,
instead of all those fourre-tout and confusing words, rather use more
explicit terms and/or, if necessary, periphrasis that say for instance: I
decorate shoes. I make shoes. I conceive graphics related to selling shoes.
I write electronic programs to make shoes. I elaborate theories related to
shoe making and/or use. I conceive ways to make artifacts meant to protect,
or to embellish human feet. I draw, and/or illustrate shoes and/or shoe
making machinery. I devise ways and instructions to (better) conceive
and/or manufacture implements for use in human - children, sailors,
elderlies... - feet. Etc. Etc.
Perhaps more pertinent??
Best regards
Francois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|