> On Jan 20, 2018, at 3:52 PM, Don Norman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> First. I stated -- but evidently not clearly enough -- that different
> disciplines have very different requirements. I am aware that for many
> disciplines, the Bauhaus was -- and still is -- very important. I was
> stating that for the disciplines I am in, the science-based part of design
> such as interaction design, the Bauhaus is not only irrelevant, but
> antithetical to our insistence on designing for the understanding,
> functions, utility, and ease of use of the people who use the end product.
> Although I have found Bauhaus writings which hint at these aspects of
> design, I am unable to find concrete instantiations that show that these
> vague words ever had any impact on the resulting works. Worse, they may
> have had a negative impact because early designers and architects (even
> today) are fond of making strong pronouncements about the way their works
> impact people, but without any shred of experimental validation.
> Statements of belief do not constitute evidence.
Not clearly enough for me but a combination of being very busy and feeling a bit gun shy from my having snapped at Ken without having the energy and focus to do it clearly and articulately kept me from commenting earlier. I’m still not really able to focus so I may be unwise jumping in now.
Even your redux with balancing rhetoric above leaves me wondering what it’s all about. I wonder what "the resulting works" encompass. Yes; different disciplines have different influences and, despite the 1841 case *Folsom v Marsh* being important in copyright law, nobody in the world of lacrosse ever cites it. I know, "Huh?" That’s how I felt reading your claim that Walter Gropius hasn’t had a big effect on cognitive psychologists or engineers. Who said he should?
You start getting to something when you bring up "functions" in your "antithetical" list. Various takes on functionalism are very interesting to play against each other. I have my students read some of your writing after they’ve read various functionalists (in the Bauhausian sense of the term), Beatrice Warde’s potshots at Jan Tschichold (where she identifies herself as the real modernist who cares about function), etc. Following similar threads about clarity, honesty, simplicity (you show up there, too), makes arguments about flat design vs skeuomorphism in interface and other odd religious wars make more sense.
It seemed to me that your Bauhaus reference was more eager to dismiss than to help us understand.
(Don’t worry. I’m grading on a pass/not pass basis and the semester is young.)
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|