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