Terry,

> On Apr 9, 2015, at 3:31 AM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> 1) How would design education look if you removed all aspects of history from all the subjects in which it has any role?

I'm not quite sure how one would do that but it certainly would be to the detriment of students' learning. Typography, for instance, is full of arcane terminology that we could treat as arbitrary but it is easier to learn if you understand its grounding in earlier technology. (More important objections to the idea to come.)

> 2) Would design education be better or worse for it in terms of producing innovative useful designs?

Worse. "Innovative useful designs" are like other creative production. They are based on past creativity. The idea that creations happen in some sort of vacuum is a naïve bit of 19th century romanticism.

> 3) What would a subject of Design Studies look like?

I'm not sure that its clear what the limits of the phrase are. I suppose that any studies of or pertaining to design would fit the description so it seems pretty arbitrary to say "studies of or pertaining to design minus any of historical nature."

> On Apr 7, 2015, at 10:17 PM, Stephen B Allard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I am finding it impossible to introduce the concepts of 'modernism', 'design' and 'theory' and to students born after 1990, without some sort of mention of design's historical roots dating back to 1500 AD and the beginning of the Modern era.

I'm currently teaching a class I've been calling "pragmatic design theory." (All of teh students except one are graphic design undergraduates.) It will become a regular class in our curriculum but for now, it's an experimental class. Forget modernism; post modernism is all about before they were born. I started them with the industrial revolution and tried to get across the shock of the changes that left many in the early 20C obsessed with building a new environment suitable for a radically changed technological and political environment. (They started out with a nearly completely ahistorical view of the world.)

The class is not a history of graphic design in the traditional sense. The class is looking at ideas and problems that have affected the way design got done. We are tracing the ideas through history. So, for instance, the use of new materials to look like old architectural materials in the 19th century feeds understanding of early 20th century arguments about honesty of materials and form, in turn leading to a better understanding of, say, Charles and Ray Eames' aesthetic use of plywood. This all helps them make sense of the reverse-reification of function as good taste. (We used a great Jay Doblin piece on "designer discrimination" as a foil for that.) That allows a better understanding of a variety of reactions to modernism (in graphic design and otherwise, formal and philosophical) . . . All of this grounds a discussion of skeuomorphism in interface design.

Start again with another recurring issue. Rinse. Repeat.

> On Apr 9, 2015, at 12:40 AM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Why teach Modernism rather than teaching students how to design?

I teach students how to design by teaching them to design, prototype their design, examine it in a variety of ways, and then design in response to what they have learned. (I tell them that I could be replaced by a parrot that just says "Make it real. Make it now.") It is an important way of thinking and acting. Examining history does not replace making but the process increases their design vocabulary, explains the legacy they've inherited (for better and for worse), and connects them with the motives of great designers so that they can connect their motives to their work.

> On Apr 9, 2015, at 12:40 AM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> In most design fields, the idea of teaching design practice through design history in that field would be considered odd.
[snip]
> I suggest in other design fields such focusing on historical issues would seem odd.

So? Why should I care what you think is odd?

> On Apr 9, 2015, at 3:31 AM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> So.... why are some design fields so obsessed with teaching design through lenses of history in the manner of Art? From this angle its looking like Design Studies isn't about the practical theories and research findings independent of history, rather it appears that the insistence on a pervasive use of a history lens (for even very recent history) means that design issues are always in effect design history issues.

I don't know what design fields are "obsessed." I don't know what you think "the manner of art" is or should be. I don't know why you think "practical theories" are or should be "independent of history." And it's not just that I don't know. I'm pretty damned sure that you're just plain wrong about all of that.

And I also don't know what sort guarantees you think, say, a graphic designer or a fashion designer should be able to make at the start of a project. (That seems to be at the core of your notion of the future of design and professionalism.)


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


-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------