Happy to see you still braving it out over here David Sless! Good for you! Unfortunately I don't have much time to spend on these kinds of academic debates anymore but many of the issues involved have from a practice perspective, been around and around and around for years anyway.
For those interested, here are a few related thoughts that I had and shared regarding various forms of seeing and or not seeing in 2003.
(This doc can be downloaded for free below)
“What Matters?: 2003 Analysis of proposal to create a new Design School at the University of California, Irvine”
2003: “Thank you Dr. Friedman for inviting me to contribute. From the comfort of our studio here in New York I have been reading much of the conference dialogue and enjoying the convenience of this medium. Despite its obvious visual and interface shortcomings, this on-line forum does have definite advantages over getting on an airplane.
Let me start with this: Last night as I was walking home from the office, thinking about what I had been reading in this (month long) discussion, trying to make sense of it and contemplating how I might best add some value, I looked up into the night sky and had, what was for me, a small aha. As I observed the light from the stars in the sky above Union Square Park, I remembered that there are everyday circumstances in which we can see time traveling towards us. Of course that particular light probably left its point of origin thousands of years ago, but was just now appearing within view of where I was standing on planet earth. Observed from a different planet, the same light might look very different; larger, smaller, brighter, dimmer, newer, older, closer, farther away, etc.
I believe this is more or less what we have going on in discussions regarding design education today. In this particular conversation we are being presented with the publicized draft of a new school model. I would venture to say that depending on where various observers stand in the universe, it likely looks quite different; larger, smaller, newer, or older, than we might have imagined it to be, before its light actually reached us. As it streams in, we try to get ourselves oriented to what we are seeing.
All of us try our best to understand that light by viewing it through the context that we are familiar with in our own study, practice and research. In its most abstract sense, innovation acceleration often involves catching and connecting streams of light/thought traveling towards and away from each other. I see this Design in the University conference, despite its extended time frame, primarily as an opportunity for innovation acceleration.”
The truth is many such opportunities for moving forward were postured and then pissed away on this list and elsewhere. From a practice perspective, not much progress was made for an extended period of time in academic circles, not practice circles. That can be worked on and accelerated but lets just be honest about it. Much that was discussed in 2003 still remains unchanged.
Needless to say history already indicates that consensus on this list is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a prerequisite for forward motion in practice. Lets not get those two things confused...:-)
Interested persons can download that paper here on my academia.edu page:
What Matters?
https://www.academia.edu/4088605/NextD_White_Paper_What_Matters_2003_Analysis_of_Proposal_to_Create_a_new_Design_School_at_the_University_of_California_Irvine_by_GK_VanPatter
Some might also be interested in this from NextD Journal in 2003:
New Design Research: Leading or Following?
GK VanPatter and Ken Friedman PhD in conversation
https://www.academia.edu/3728316/NextD_Journal_New_Design_Research_Leading_or_Following_GK_VanPatter_and_Ken_Friedman
Have a good week. Good luck to all. Happy to see you in New York City next time you are around David.
GK VanPatter
Humantific
SenseMaking for ChangeMaking
NEW YORK / MADRID
6 West 18th Street, 9th Floor
New York City, NY 10011
Subscribe to Humantific Quarterly
Follow Humantific on Twitter and Facebook
On Nov 10, 2014, at 3:45 AM, David Sless <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Strange things happen when our logo is left in emails to the list, so here it is again, sans logo.
>
> Hi All,
>
> I’m with Garry, at least part of the way.
>
> I find the disconnect between this thread and design practice profound, breathtaking in its lack of relevance outside academic debates of some 50 years ago, and profoundly depressing. I’m not sure the term “incommensurate” covers it, but it’s the one that comes most readily to mind. Perhaps I need another brandy!
>
> With so many assumptions floating around about the nature of “evidence”, and all the clever and smart arguments that can be used to defend or deflate a particular points of view on the subject, it might be useful to ask practitioners why they used the term, in what context, and how they do useful work that involves the term “evidence”.
>
> All the rest seems to me like posturing.
>
> David
> --
>
>
>
>
> blog: http://communication.org.au/blog/ <http://communication.org.au/blog/>
> web: http://communication.org.au <http://communication.org.au/>
>
> Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
> CEO • Communication Research Institute •
> • helping people communicate with people •
>
> Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
> Phone: +61 (0)3 9005 5903
> Skype: davidsless
>
> 60 Park Street • Fitzroy North • Melbourne • Australia • 3068
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
