David -- I think you meant to address your Ulm comments to Ursula. Despite my name, which comes courtesy of an immigrant grandmother, I am (alas) only a native English speaker, though I have been able to work with Ulm alumni.
thanks,H.
On Monday, February 11, 2019, 6:42:39 p.m. EST, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 11 Feb 2019, at 10:07 pm, Ursula Tischner <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Last point: About Design Research: Every time this list (especially the native english speaking members, again, no offense just an observation) discusses about design research and its origins. I have to think, well, why do they not acknowledge the Ulm School of Design? From all I know it has been the first school in the world that has established research in design and design as a research discipline. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulm_School_of_Design
> From 1953 to 1968 in Ulm, Germany it has been the institution to establish a new revolutionary idea about design as a discipline and design education, using the heritage of the Bauhaus but going in many new directions, especially strengthening the connection of science and design.
> For more information start here: https://museumulm.de/en/collections/ulm-school-of-design/
> Maybe it is due to the fact, that only limited publications about Ulm are available in English? But when the school has been closed many of the teachers went to other countries and continued with the design research activities. So their influence was certainly global.
> We are celebrating this year in Germany the anniversary of 100 years of Bauhaus https://www.bauhaus100.com
> and 50 years of Ulm…..
Heidi,
Interesting point. I certainly knew of and cited some of the Ulm work in my early research.
https://www.academia.edu/26706507/The_application_of_behavioural_science_to_symbol_Design
Maybe it was a language issue that got in the way of my appreciation—perhaps the English translations I read were not illuminating— but for me it seemed deeper. What struck me was a willingness at Ulm to accept, somewhat uncritically, certain aspects of science and linguistic theory. I read a great deal about Visual Rhetoric and Semiotics following my readings of the Ulm work, and found myself being very skeptical about some claims being made. Perhaps my boring English pragmatic valuing of common sense rather than theory got in my way.
But later, in Learning and Visual Communication (p128), I mentioned the Ulm work quite positively, in relation to Visual Rhetoric.
(BTW Learning and Visual Communication was recently reprinted @
https://www.routledge.com/Learning-and-Visual-Communication/Sless/p/book/9780367076511
The end result of my skepticism was my ironically titled:
Sless, David. In Search of Semiotics. Totowa, New Jersey: Barnes & Noble Books, 1986.
Àpropos of which, I am considering writing a new version of that, just to stir the pot a bit more!
There were certainly a very limited number of sources in English about the ULM work, but it was always considered. Perhaps it’s time, as Keith suggests, for more discussion on this.
David
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|