<http://www.iade.pt/>
Início da mensagem reencaminhada:
De: EUROPEIA <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Assunto: Re: Doctoral education, the academies
Data: 22 de Março de 2017 às 22:04:25 WET
Para: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Dear ken Funny that you have concentrated your comments on the dancing part of my post. I’m sure that you and anyone would imagine that I don’t know what the trivium and the quadrivium were and that they relentlessly persisted almost until our days in Universities far from architecture and other practical arts. I was making a joke with the meaning of University, of course irrelevant for our argument. Also, I was joking about studio in that sense.
I will quote a post that I send you some years ago:
"Please read Karen-Edis Barzman's The Florentine "Academy and the Early Modern State, The Discipline of Disegno", CUP (2000), if not take a look at monumental Pevsner's Academies of Art, Past and Present.
I would say that the aristocratic, higher intellectual position of the academics inflated to encapsulate all objectual production in the 1700’s and 1800’s. The arts and crafts and other correspondent European and American movements reacted to that and the same as they have made a Myth out Gothic Art, they made a Myth out the guild master. A position that claims that modern designers are the intellectual heirs of guilds is: one, not true; two, contributes to loath the intellectual research skills that since the 1500's were used by artists."
"It is not by accident that in a great number of countries, architects were the first industrial or product designers, because that's what architects (and sculptors) had been doing for the past 400 years: furniture, table ware, decorations., etc, and most of the times ordering (with drawings) guild masters to execute them."
"I like to think that designers are the heirs of the intellectual artists founders of the first Academy devoted both to serve as knowledge producing institution and professional education. It is not also an accident that painters educated in the highest tradition of Fine Arts were the graphic designers."
"Amongst others, the central discipline taught in the Florentine Academy since 1563! was Mathematics (mostly geometry, in fact). Other was Dissection of corpses, naturally not intended to make beautiful drawings but to understand the body mechanics. Another was life drawing, not as an artistic expression but as a form of inquiry. These and other drawings were not secret but highly discussed and shown. The Academy, as authorized by Cosimo I, had also the designation of Studio, which means University, although it was also designated Universitá (which meant Guild) and Compagnia, which meant association.
If I had to exclude a tradition, as the least important to modern designers, I would exclude the guild tradition. Even the manual insistence in the Bauhaus was a phony one. Think about who were the bosses, where they had studied, and what they have done previously.”
I guess I must stop doing irony, jokes and puns within these posts.
Best,
Eduardo
Eduardo Corte-Real
PhD Arch.
Associate Professor
Professor Associado com Agregação
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
No dia 22/03/2017, às 21:22, Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> escreveu:
Dear Jean,
You are quite right in your comments (copied below). I did not explain my position. I simply corrected errors of historical fact. As I read Eduardo’s post, he made his argument based on incorrect history and on a mistaken account of the name of the University of Bologna. Eduardo’s statement of incorrect facts neither supports nor undermines his beliefs. At the same time, the statement of those incorrect facts is intended to suggest that Eduardo’s account supported his position when it did not. That’s why I challenged the account, and that’s why I did not challenge Eduardo’s position. He made a statement of belief, and he has the right to believe what he wishes to believe.
I believe in the importance of studio education, just as you do and just as Eduardo does. I limited my question to the Ph.D.: “How can we build a Ph.D. — the modern research doctorate — on the foundation of studio education?”
This question came up in response to a comment in an earlier thread. I simply don’t see how to build a Ph.D. on the basis of a studio foundation.
The professional academies made an important contribution to culture, and many still do. Studio education does a great deal of good in the world. That is a very different claim than arguing that studio education gives studio graduates the basis for moving onward to a research degree.
If you’ve got an answer to my question, I’d be happy to hear it: “How can we build a Ph.D. — the modern research doctorate — on the foundation of studio education?”
I agree with much of what you write — your view doesn’t contradict anything I wrote.
Yours,
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Tongji University in Cooperation with Elsevier | URL: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/she-ji-the-journal-of-design-economics-and-innovation/
Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia
Email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Academia http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman | D&I http://tjdi.tongji.edu.cn
—
Jean Schneider wrote:
—snip—
[in response to]
Le 22 mars 2017 à 20:23, Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> a écrit :
“At any rate, I will call it a day. If we cannot manage to define terms or draw accurately on history, then we’re simply stating beliefs. Since you have stated your belief, that’s enough for me. While I don’t agree, I accept that you ‘truly believe that Art Academies produced enough work to root Design PhDs’.”
I sit pretty much on the side of Eduardo. Ken is correcting some factual points, yet I don’t see that they completely question both positions. My feeling is that factual inaccuracies don’t make the way to stating beliefs (at least what I understand as beliefs). Both of you are experienced professionals, and what you are stating reflects the blending of experience, practice, positions, convictions and visions of what education and educating might be. That’s not what I call beliefs.
To me, the divide is profound, and cultural. I guess that Eduardo and myself carry this specific way of building the future with the familiar, daily, active (and not ghostly) presence of the past. That is being European.
This is also why I find Don’s optimism fascinating, not because of the faith he has in the power of design (which I somehow share), but because the practicality that he sees as a major divide from art should then —in my understanding— include the whole economy of design realization (who orders, who pays, who uses, who decides…). And if I look at it like this, I would be building a theory of design out of a week-end excursion in a couple of shopping malls, rather than from history or anything else.
—snip—
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
