thanks for the refreshing list of problems with the idea of a canon. after
all, we do not want to create a church or doctrine. i would be much more
happy with certain categories of books of which a designer should have
mastered some.
* history of design certainly is one candidate. not to know one's history
is an invitation to repeat mistakes. but "design studies" which victor
wants us to attend to, can be no more than the backdrop of current design.
* futurology, a way to anticipate, plan, and act so as to bring certain
desirable realities into being is far more important than the study of
(past) design accomplishments. planning techniques are continuously being
revised and expanded. some acquaintance with this literature is a must.
* techniques of imagining, envisioning, and communicating new things, are
essential for designers. there is much psychological literature on the
subject and communication theory without which designers would have to
retort to naive conceptions of what they are doing.
* methodology is essential tool. i wouldn't recommend a particular book,
but every designer should know of some systematic methods to amplify their
intellect.
* methods of empirical inquiry are important. i don't mean traditional
behavioral experiments, surveys, or ethnographic research, but an
appreciation that one can find out things by working with others, listening
carefully, and aggregating the facts obtained to gain a larger understanding.
* finally a sense of the dynamics of material culture is important. i
studied anthropology for this reason. others acquire such an understanding
through sociological or ecological inquiries.
it would be a mistake to declare a few famous author's book as the canon of
design when there are so many ways to access these kinds of
understandings. but i dare say that someone who is insufficiently
familiarity with all of these categories of knowing probably isn't a
thoughtful designer.
(i realize the importance of ethics but i would rather like not to separate
ethics from the other competencies i mentioned -- as philosophers tend to do).
klaus
At 02:25 AM 9/7/00 -0400, Richard Buchanan wrote:
>The discussion up to this point has been interesting, but it also
>demonstrates why we should put serious cautionary marks around the word
>"canon."
>
>The idea of a canon is problematic for three reasons.
>
>First, a "canon" typically reflects a metaphysical, political, or
>ideological vision about the subject. One needs a principle to guide
>the selection of works, and the principle necessarily comes from one's
>approach to the subject. So, we select (1) works by influential people,
>or (2) works that express important ideas, or (3) works that have
>significance in their historical context, or (4) works that demonstrate
>an approach to a particular problem. Each of these is reasonable in
>itself, but none, by itself, entirely satisfies our collective concerns
>and interests. (Notice the similar problem with the "Good Design
>Movement" at MOMA--what was canonized in the exhibitions at MOMA and
>what was excluded.)
>
>Second, the idea of a "canon" is problematic because we wonder who has
>the authority to "canonize" a particular author or work. Who can
>declare that a work is "classic" and deserving of inclusion. Does the
>authority reside with an elite group or does it reside with the general
>readership and time--"the work that survives the test of time"--or does
>it reside with the person to whom the canon is directed (namely, the
>students who are supposed to be shaped by the "canon")?
>
>Third, the idea of a "canon" is problematic because of what is excluded.
> Inevitably, whatever is excluded will, sooner or later, become a matter
>of controversy. In literary studies, for example, the "canon" has been
>overturned so that room could be found for women and minorities.
>Overturning a canon is inevitable.
>
>
>I do not raise these matters to discourage the effort of discovering
>what would constitute a valuable reading list for the field. The effort
>is reasonable and useful. But I think we should be cautious about being
>too precise and formal in the matter--now or in the future.
>
>The bibliographies of many books and articles provide ample
>suggestions--scholarly or pedantic--for detailed reading programs for
>students.
>
>What I am most interested in--my own principle of selection--is a
>handful of books that can serve as a stimulating beginning point for
>creative thinking about the field. Perhaps this is what Victor has in
>mind by the common core of works. Then, we might have a larger map of
>readings that move out in different directions for history, theory,
>criticism, and various forms of design practice. Again, perhaps this is
>what Victor has in mind by the "sub-fields" of design.
>
>So, we have a small common core (not as rigid as the Church Canon). And
>we have branches with leaves along a path of more focused study, suited
>to the area of specialization of the student.
>
>Now, we may begin to map this to the structure of a Ph.D. program,
>divided into Preliminary, Comprehensive, and Dissertation phases.
>
>Just some thoughts.
>
>Dick
>
>
>Richard Buchanan
>Professor and Head
>School of Design
>Carnegie Mellon University
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|