 |
 |
HI Jan, This is certainly a point to be pondered. Personally I do not think there is a need to distinguish between a designer for social responsibility and other designers profiles. The point Peter Butenschon was making, I think, is that designers should have a role also in processes generated by a higher sense of social (or environmental) responsibility. To do this the designers should have a clear picture of the competences and skills that are needed to participate to those processes. Furthermore the designers should be strong enough to identify the 'design related' problems in such problems and propose them in design terms. In other words I have the impression that designers are not involved in process such as the ones Peter was mentioning simply because no one has an idea of what they can do, nor designer themselves are able to specify their competences and capability in institutional contexts in which such processes are organized. So the 'designers for social responsibility' are not special kind of designers. The sensitivity and skills that are required to act in a socially responsible way should be part of a broader background, together with other more 'traditional' competences (e.g. on industrial processes, on design management, etc). In other words we do not need further specialization, but just a specification and a better definition of some competences that may be used in a socially responsible process (but should be part of the business as usual, that should also be socially responsible). TO come back to the building construction metaphor, we do not need a new branch for the building (therefore we do not need to broaden the foundations), we just need to include those aspects when defining the foundations. This is my very personal opinion, of course, someone else may have a different one... Ass Prof Nicola Morelli Institute of Architecture and Design Aalborg University, Denmark Web: http://www.aod.auc.dk/staff/nmor -----Original Message----- From: Jan Coker [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 17 September 2002 03:37 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Building the Field? on which ground? In response to Nicola, A main thread of our program here is addressing issues of awareness in our students to expanded uses of their design education. This includes application of design methodology to a humanitarian problem in the 4th year. This year it was design for learning environments for disabled children. It is interesting that you bring this up and mention Peter Butenschon's keynote address. As I mentioned in my previous email the ICSID Congress picked up the humanitarian thread most strongly. So as our profession matures it is also logical that what was once one or two voices in the wilderness has become a stated ideal by ICSID. Do we then create an entity called Designers for Social Responsibility or some such? A colleague here and myself had this conversation in the hall and I mentioned the work of Physicians for Social Responsibility, and another organisation comes to mind, The American Civil Liberties Union, which Americans may know devote their time to the protection of the human rights stated in the Bill of Rights, such as the right to free speech, etc. What do you think? Jan Jan Coker Lecturer in Industrial Design Louis Laybourne Smith School of Architecture and Design City West Campus, North Terrace Adelaide, South Australia 5000 Telephone: +61 8 8302 6919 Facsimile: +61 8 8302 0211 email: [log in to unmask]