Dear Ken and all,
The following long development is a fundamental 'argument to my - usual -
assertions' to this list, in relations to the subject under debate. So
please excuse the length.
Naturally in a ‘clumsy English’, and not from a PhD holder nor a
Distinguished Professor, just as an interested old (in the age of senile??
as someone hinted at recently) African who happened to be somehow
introduced to your Western culture and to the profession called ‘Design’,
once again I offer to start from the following “opinion”, in proposing what
I believe would be the right, overall definition of the profession. And
much this being only an academic exercise! For, in their daily respective
businesses, people will just carry on as they have been trained and as they
have always been, without much bothering and being never bothered by names
and definitions.
The late Guy DESBARATS, founder and first dean of the Faculté
d’Aménagement, de l’Université de Montréal, exactly 50 years ago, “faught”
(re personal communication just a few days prior to his passing) to
“impose” the concept of ‘Aménagement’ as the anchor on which to base the
new Faculty. This was totally a new view and perspective, different from
both the traditional European Beax Arts and Applied Arts, and from the then
nascent American Environmental Design. And all together different from the
neologism en vogue at the time of the early ‘30 glorieuses’, that of a
‘Design’ (marketing), mainly emphasizing on ‘style’, much on look (visual).
Mr. DESBARATS opted instead and proposed for his Faculty, to focus on
training a new creed of experts dealing with SPACE as the material to put
in various shapes, prior to being looked at (aesthetics, appearance). This
latter function was not at all disregarded! It was just a matter of
priority in focus and emphasis.
Also, Mr. DESBARATS innovative move came about at a time when some
technical training programs were being integrated within University ‘higher
level’ curricula. Accordingly, for some, it therefore sounded more
appropriate (can I say prestigiously esoteric??) to call the new hybrid
(technical level+university level) program “École de design” instead of
‘École des Beaux Arts’ ; or "École de design de mode", instead of simply
‘École de mode ou de style (vestimentaire)’, etc.
And finally, historically, the 50s and 60s was the period of the ascending
American world hegemony, everything Anglo-American was the only thing “in”,
most valuable. Even meaningless in other world cultures, the term “design”
was vastly adopted worldwide, to express whatever was perceived as
“modern”, “universal”, meaning non-traditional, non-local, worldwide
applicable and usable. That is one of the reasons Mr. DESBARATS preferred
instead the term ‘Aménagement de l’espace’, more directly meaningful to any
French speaking individual than the (vague, for us French speaking)
Anglo-Saxon term of ‘Environmental….design’.
In French, the term “espace” means an expanse of any matter, considered in
its physical, chemical, or any other socio-mental dimensions of length,
with, and depth one wishes to consider. Hence the fundamental meaning of
the term 'artifact'. And the term “aménagement” refers to a purposeful
intervention in such an expanse thus delineated, with the ultimate aim to
render it fulfilling the intended purpose(s).
The experts that Mr. DESBARATS was proposing to train, both at higher
philosophical and higher technical levels, were those individuals capable
to identify and delineate the space matter on which to intervene with the
aim to render it more useful in whatever way. Mr. DESBARATS proposed to
focus on the expanse of daily use objects (‘Design’ industriel), the
expanse of sheltering buildings (Architecture), and the expanse of human
urban settlement (Urbanisme). All being different kinds of
space...delineated or embodied as one would say!
For the record, Mr. DESBARATS didn’t stay enough (to my liking) at the
helm of ‘his’ Faculty. After his departure, few more ‘programs’ were added
all along in time in the Faculty training, however not necessarily in the
perspective he had imparted to the Faculty. And I was (reluctantly!!)
trained (during 6 years) within the program of "Design Industriel" (??) in
that Faculty....
All the above long development just to mention that, first, I fully adhere
to Mr. DESBARATS view: that all academic university level programs and
technical level training focusing on USABLE SPACE in any way, are involved
in a same domain; you call it the way you wish, to me, names are not that
important. We all deal with space, bundled into artifacts respectively
tangible or intangible.
Second, to those who may be interested to pursue the exploration on
clarification of boundaries of our discipline, as I started a few years ago
following the perspective indicated to me by Mr. DESBARATS, you can read
and hopefully expand on further:
“The Geography of Material Artefacts and an Outline for Synergetic
Geography”. (Co-authorship with Gary Backhaus). In EARTH WAYS: Framing
Geographical Meanings. Edited by Gary Backhaus and John Murungi. Lanham,
MD.: Lexington Books, 2004, pp. 95-114.
<https://www.academia.edu/4210815/The_Geography_of_Material_Artefacts_and_an_Outline_for_Synergetic_Geography._Co-authorship_with_Gary_Backhaus_._In_EARTH_WAYS_Framing_Geographical_Meanings._Edited_by_Gary_Backhaus_and_John_Murungi._Lanham_MD._Lexington_Books_2004_pp._95-114>
Bonne chance!
François, Rwanda
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
