Terry,
I tried to cut your post down to its essence so I could amend my reply but didn't get far. In doing so, I realized that I wasn't sure what you were saying.
In engineering design, your "a-list" (non-design) is background knowledge and skills and your "b-list" (design) is "ability to know and use a variety of design processes. . . and a variety of design methods. . . ." I won't quibble about whether declaring design to be design processes and methods is a bit on the tautological side. I'm self-centered enough to want to get straight into your "art and design" a- and b-lists.
I'm afraid that I found your examples somewhat confusing. What, for instance, does "web design" mean (since you noted that it was not design)?
You put forward a question but you didn't make it clear to me what the question meant so I'll toss it back to you: What are the properly b-list things that ought to be (but are not being) taught to graphic design students?
I'm not sure what you're suggesting about subject matter. (Maybe I've spent the last forty years not doing design?) I'm also wondering about what you seem to be implying about the educational process. Your advice seems (at least at first glance) to run counter to what I try to do as a teacher of design (or teacher of something else?).
I would characterize my general approach as an attempt at integrating skills with what I would consider design activity as a primary way of imparting design knowledge and understanding. I do that for several reasons.
One is that I don't know how to completely unravel the threads so, for instance, I really am not sure how one teaches graphic design without teaching typography and vice versa.
Another is that I believe that the best way to learn to do design is to do design. (Of course, there are better and worse ways to do design to learn to do design.)
Another is that I believe that the more different ways people learn about anything, the better they will learn. Although perhaps less than a few years ago, my students are people who, more than most people, learn with their hands.
Perhaps the most important reason is that the sort of design we (my colleagues at ECU and others) do represents a sort of thinking that is important and useful. I won't call it "design thinking" since that will just confuse the conversation further. I refer to it as thinking through making. It is one of the ways that many designers think. Iterative thinking aided by rapid prototyping starts to describe it but it goes deeper than that.
Since I don't know what parts of graphic design activity you are calling design and not-design, I'll stop there and wait for further explanation.
Gunnar
Gunnar Swanson
East Carolina University
graphic design program
http://www.ecu.edu/cs-cfac/soad/graphic/index.cfm
[log in to unmask]
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
1901 East 6th Street
Greenville NC 27858
USA
http://www.gunnarswanson.com
[log in to unmask]
+1 252 258-7006
On Sep 14, 2014, at 6:12 AM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> In essence the problem is obtaining good educational balance between two very different educational foundations:
>
> a) the back ground knowledge and expertise that designers refer to undertake designing activity, but which is not specific to design
> b) the knowledge and expertise that is specific to design activity
[snip]
> For example, knowledge and expertise such as the ability to calculate the stress in a pressure vessel, draw and sketch using ISO 128 standard conventions, or plot the movement of a robotised packing machine linkage are clearly of type a). They are independent of design activity
> In contrast, ability to know and use a variety of design processes (waterfall, agile, XP, scrum, CAM, CAE etc) and a variety of design methods (e.g. all the DfX methods, axiometric design, etc) are clearly of type b).
[snip]
> The situation is some way behind the above in Art And Design design fields. The distinction between types a) and b) knowledge and expertise applies just as much. The understanding of the need to distinguish between type a) and type b), however, is not yet widely articulated yet in Art and Design.
> The question then becomes, which knowledge and expertise taught in design schools is type a) and type b).
>
> Taking graphic design as an example:
>
> In type a) (background knowledge and skill rather than knowledge and skill specific to design activities) we would locate colour theory, gestalt theory, use of balance, information hierarchy, typography, theories of emotional design, drawing and sketching skills, perspective, use of rhetoric, web design, identity, symbols, design materials and manufacture, human perception, culture, photography, communication, representation, research skills, narrative, illustration and animation, game design principles, printing, media studies, internet studies and many other topics taught in design schools.
>
> It leaves the question about the part of design education that is specifically about design activity, i.e. the type b) topics. 'What in design education should be included as type b) the knowledge and expertise that is specifically about the activity of designing?
>
> This latter is a serious question.
[snip]
> A crucial part of addressing it in the Art and Design fields, likely will be understanding the differences between the type a) and type b) kinds of knowledge and expertise, AND ensuring they are not confused or conflated .
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|