 |
 |
Dear Norm, On the false consciousness thread you asked: ..." can there be a false sketch in the same way there may be false consciousness?.." This is an exceptionally difficult question to answer, but a very interesting one as it deals with one of the core issues of design learning, namely the ability to explore and investigate a task in initially "one's own language", that then has to be explained and shared with others. The inner voice, so to speak has to be articulated and projected outwards. I have a problem with the word false as I find that whether a student's sketch is appropriate or not is often linked to their quality of intent, the level of understanding or their ability to articulate their thoughts or concepts as a sketch, be it on paper or with tangible materials. It can be just simply their level of development - sketch might appear false or look weak, but the thinking and explanation behind it are in place or at least on the way. The student just lacks the means of visual articulation. I have seldom been confronted with a student who has deliberately tried to con his/her way through a project and be deliberately fraudulent. But I have had students, who, no matter how much time one spends with them, just don't seem to understand what it is they are trying to achieve or find ways of doing so. This has, I feel, a lot to do with the very human issues of insecurity, an unwillingness to take risks and a dread of exposing personal weakness. I have a few examples here, one as a censor, the others from my own research material, that illustrate the range of how intent, intrinsic motivation, identification with the task and result hang together. The first is an experience I had as an external censor for a graduate student's final exam. This is a good example of a student just not understanding the investigative nature of sketching. The student concerned had produced a stack of 58 hand drawn sketches that we were told formed a large part of the initial investigatory phase. I was very uneasy with the project as the rest of the material on exhibit was thin and weak, so the standard of thinking reflected in the sketches came as no surprise to me. All the sketches were basically the same. One element of the student's concept had been repeated as a sketch with minor variations. It was clear that there was no real sense of engendering "perplexity" to use Keith Russel's phrase and no sense of exploration. Sadly the student was unable to see the relationship between the lack of genuine curiosity and intent and the quality of the thinking in the sketches or even for that matter throughout the rest of the project. There was no arrogance here, no attempt at trying to convince us, no attempt at conning us. So I don't think one could use the word false here, even though the student was clearly way off key. A lack of basic design understanding is maybe a more appropriate description. The student just could not understand our point. In the student's mind the project was ok! This incident was many years ago now and thankfully I've never been presented with such a dire case since. Secondly, I have a couple of examples from my own data, which help to explain the difference in the students' approach. I have been recently reviewing video material from several of the "Visual Postcard" courses, that I mentioned on the list a few days ago, in particual two sessions with design students from two separate institutions. The type of sketches are all "tinkered objects" made using found materials. The sketches are not representative, in that an outsider walking into the studio would probably be unable to understand them. The objects are used as mediators of the students' understanding and as such are springboards for the students' explanation. Observing the video reveals many nuanced layers of intent, focus, consistency, language, gesture, body language and contact with the sketches, that give an overall impression of validity or not, as the case may be. For now, I have been able to identify what seems to be three approaches. 1. The confident students: "I'm really enjoying experimenting like this". "I have chosen to put this screw here because...", I have decided to work from this angle..." The sketches produced are very precise, tight and rich in detail. These students can give a thorough description of each element and link the relevance to their concept or story or even to which particular detail or context of their story they are referring to. They can relate alterations in their sketches to an explanation of their investigatory process and clearly relate this learning to the specific context of the task and to their deepened understanding of design in general. Their body contact with the sketches is also clear and precise. They are confident in the space around their sketches. They pick them up, turn them around to demonstrate details, yet are able to let go of them and return them to the table, to explain broader issues of their concept. They don't clutch onto them. 2. There are a group of students who typically approach the task with: "I want to explore this concept, but find it difficult get beyond my usal thinking". In other words motivation is in place. These students are typically unsure as to whether their idea is good enough. They tend to try and iron out the creases of their concept in their minds before exposing the idea to a physical or visual reality. As there has been no real dialogue or personal challenge between their idea and what they produce, the result of the first attempts fall far short of their expectations. The nature of these sketches can't be polished, as they are made using found materials, so the mismatch between the student's expectations and the quality of the visual result is often revealed in their inability to explain precisely what choices they have made. These students are usually very articulate and this sudden lack of articulation throws them. The general concept or context of the course is "anything goes as long as you can argue your case". The students are encouraged to take risks and just get something out. They see after a while that an ambiguous sketch can often point the way to a line of inquiry that can bear fruit. That an initial clicheé is often a container that can be broken open to reveal innovative possibilities. I find that once the reflective capacity and realisation that experiment is ok, is in place, they often stride forward and can present their work with the same kind of presence as the group of students already mentioned. With regard to the question of whether a sketch is false or not, the students I've just mentioned could well have found themselves in the firing line, as many have, thus their reluctance to experiment. So is it the sketch or the intent, that could be deemed inappropriate or false? 3. This third group of students is interesting when comparing the relationship between their intent, will to investigate and their method of presentation. Their explanations are often "well, you know what I mean, it's sort of like this...". They are motivated, but have difficulty in articulating a precise intent. Their discussions around their work are often generalised and vague and their investigation of the task is also generalised, going off into a number of blind alleys. They lack focus and however much one points this out to them they indicate that they feel ok with their work. An interesting observation, reviewing the video material, was the way these students engaged the space around their work when presenting. They often stood quite apart from their objects / sketches, their body language, large waving motions in the air or quick flurries with a hand as if they were trying to brush something away. Sometimes they hardly referred to their sketches throughout their presentation. If they did venture to pick up their objects, they looked uncomfortable and held them at a stretch from their bodies or just held them up without referring to them. So again we have a level of sketching that is clearly inadequate. A level of intent that was in place, but a means that was not. These students have tried as best as they could even though the situation revealed clear difficulties of personal identification with the task. Can one call these sketches false? So Norm, I can't really answer your question. Thanks for posing it though. Best regards, Chris. ----------------------------------- from: Chris Heape Senior Researcher - Design Didactics / Design Practice Mads Clausen Institute University of Southern Denmark Grundtvigsallé 150 6400 Sønderborg Denmark e.mail : [log in to unmask] telephone : +45 6550 1671 http://www.mci.sdu.dk -------------------------------------- home: e.mail : [log in to unmask] telephone: +45 7630 0380