Hi David,



You are right. I see the gap as 30-50 years. So, I would agree with 30. 



It is interesting what we will see if we look through the prism of cultural diffusion. It might even be pretty fast rather than slow. Modernist architecture became mainstream in Europe after 30 years, in the 1950s. I mean really mainstream. Deconstructivism still cannot get traction, 30 years after the first examples grabbed the attention. 



Now on a slightly different note:



So, let's see the time lag of ideas in architecture. For example, problem seeking. There is a famous book from 1969 with the same title. It is on architectural programming. This thing is hardly taught in architecture schools, and if taught, it is only one course. It is so complex that it has to be professionalized as an allied profession. And there is a bigger question than teaching problem seeking for architects. Should architects be problem seekers or this should be done by another profession, the architectural programmers.



The first kernels of architectural/facilities programming are from the 1930s (educational specifications or school plan specifications), and more evidently from 1950s (AIA and the research program on architectural programming). Yet, we still don't have such a professions. The architects make everything possible that it doesn't make it.



And all the talk about co-design and co-creation? Without architectural/facilities programming it might be driving us in the wrong direction. I have nothing against user participation, but without a proper framework, it will be like building the tower of Babel. Remember the old adage: What is a camel? A camel is a horse designed by a committee. I would say the same about co-creation if it is not inscribed in programming and design. And if people still insist on co-creation, I will tell them they will be actually doing vernacular. Vernacular is the people's thing. They love it. I mean uneducated people.



And here we come to education, and the general education, and what is the use of it, and so on. Well, it should be in high school, it belongs there. But when the high school has totally failed, let's continue it in the university. It is a money maker, by the way. But without gen ed, it might be worse. We might have these designers with the mind of master builders and the self-esteem of rocket scientists.



We have gone mad looking in the future. The future is already here; it is just not evenly distributed (citation). I would disagree with many courageous predictions that by themselves and in themselves are only beautiful stories. Of course, we cannot go forever with the Bauhaus workshops. The problem is that most of the proposals are very enthusiastic attempts to cut the umbilical cord, but the proposals are not very innovative. 



And some of our "progressive" ideas are actually a step back. Making. What a great idea. But the craftsman are better than the makers. Much better because historically craft has been much more than making. And no one thinks about this. Let's become makers, let's make maker spaces, .... and so on. It is all about fads and social media hype. 



We don't need makers, we need thinkers. Design is about thinking. Unfortunately, the design communities cannot get this. The prototype is not design and cannot be design--by definition. It is only a stage of the project delivery process. It is useful, it is important, and it is the only way to improve our design when we cannot do better. But it is not design. 



So, the future is here. The problem is that people do not see it and seek other futures, the futures in their heads. Unfortunately, these imaginary futures lead us in the wrong direction. Otherwise, by now we will be living on the Moon. I mean some US designers that otherwise think about moving to Canada if the elections... (I will stop here.) 



So, 30 to 50 years time lag -- that is not very bad, considering that we go in the wrong direction so often.



Best wishes,



Lubomir



-----Original Message-----

From: PhD-Design <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of David Sless

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 6:19 PM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Picks from Meredith Davis’s Talks



Hi Ken,



Sometime ago I asked this list about the 30 year gap between advanced work based on research and routine practice based on current graduate training.  The consensus was that the 30 year gap was normal. Meredith’s eloquent little YouTube seems to reflect that. Am I wrong?



David



From springtime in Melbourne, with single digit cases per day of you know what!!





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

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

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