Robert:
Yes, a biennial face-to-face conversation! What a world!!
<SNIP>
What I'm getting at here is that I think you're right to have
"trepidation" about "name change" because if it's perceived in this way
then we potentially throw away a century's work. David points this out as
the "second potential danger is to the cumulative body or research and
practice that is ignored as the new order ... replaces the old ...
remov[ing] the obligation to scrutinise earlier work that offers findings
and insights that could save needless reinvention…"
<SNIP>
I did not comment in my response to David but perhaps should have, I don't see why a name change requires us to abandon a century's work? Meggs history would still describe the foundations of communication design, a name change would just have the next edition say "Communication Design" on the cover. David's description of graphic design process will still apply, it will just be the communication design process, which I interpret him to say 'graphic design' education only did partially anyway and that a "communicative design" design discipline might cover more fully.
Perhaps you and/or David can explain what a name change is a danger to history and process and not just a new, more comprehensive label.
I tried to say before but perhaps did not say simply enough that I think change drives name more than name drives change.
Best…
Mike Zender
University of Cincinnati
Editor, Visible Language
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|