Mike
In your response to David you explained at length reasons for name change,
and I agree with you that change should drive name change. It sounds as if
you are embarking on this at UoC, and I recognise it takes time, perhaps
as mush as 510 years for change to happen. I interpreted what you said as
Graphic Design becoming Communication Design, but as you suggest, it's not
so clear cut, and I understand the reasons why.
The thread initially began with a discussion about differentiation between
Graphic Design and Communication Design, and I argued that to assume one
is replacing the other may not be appropriate. I don't see it as a
universally accepted view. I'm not alone in concerns about name change and
other Graphic Design researchers have expressed doubts about the integrity
of re-badging exercises.
For example, back in 2008, Linda Fu raised the issue of substitution (if I
can call it that for a moment) at the New Views 2 conference in London.
She suggested this is largely a switch in name only, without any real
implication about what this might mean in terms of difference, or the
Œgap¹ between the terms that needs to be Œdebated, realised and bridged¹.
In her abstract she stated:
Š the simplistic graphic design-visual communication equation is
problematic to the appreciation and progression of our [graphic design]
profession, because it can cloud our vision, mission and judgement. By its
very nature, visual communication involves a wider territory (both
theoretically and disciplinary) and therefore represents greater
challenges to the traditional boundary of graphic design. (2008: 31, New
Views 2 abstracts booklet)
David makes a good job of explaining why in his article.
I think you're asking why name change is a danger to history. I don't
necessarily think it is. You go on to say that Meggs history could evolve
into the Communication Design. It could. But that assumes Graphic Design
is not continuing to write new histories for itself: there is still much
to be written and much new work to be written about.
My argument is that Graphic Design continues to evolve (even as the next
small thing) but is not "transitioning" into something else. That suggests
it is ceasing to exist, which I don't believe to be the case and is why
it's a potentially "damaging" assumption. This is not to say new practices
are not emerging, such as Communication Design, perhaps with its history
yet be written from a visual/graphic perspective. That will be a
Communication Design history. But I don't see enough evidence to suggest
that Graphic Design is wholly morphing into Communication Design, and am
not convinced by documents such as the Icograda manifesto as proof. For
example, some of the essays simply call for an expansion of graphic
design's concerns, into what I presume will result in new histories.
I can see how Communication Design might draw from Graphic Design history,
even subsume it, or vice-versa, as the case may be. I just think we need
to be distinct when we discuss the two fields because one has an
established history which has been written on behalf of past, current and
future generations, and one does not, yet. I'm pretty clear that the
Graphic Design history which has been written is not a history of
Communication Design.
If I teach Graphic Design, it helps me, and I presume students and
academics outside the field who research Graphic Design if there is a
clearly defined canon not called something else. And I don't expect
Graphic Design history to tell me all there is to know about typography,
or illustration, or photography, or printing, or whatever else. I will
look more deeply into their histories for that.
I initially proposed the thread header as Graphic Design as Communication
Design. It may be better called Graphic Design in Communication Design.
Regards
Robert
Robert Harland
School of Arts, English and Drama
Loughborough University
On 25/09/2014 18:00, "Paul Mike Zender" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Robert:
>
><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.
>
>BestŠ
>
>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
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
