Dear Ian

I don't mind the idea of a nursery school for the soul of the young. Such moon knowledge befits the young. My concern is when this ends. This issue is something the PhD Design group needs to address - when and how does the rigour expected of a PhD announce itself in the undergraduate program? Many traditional areas of the humanities have a clear and progressive understanding of the inducting of the young into the mysteries oh knowledge. Honours years are often used as the edge or liminal point. Somewhere in the honours year the childish will cease.

This is not to say other professional approaches might not shift this point outside of the formal  training program. Then there is no value or point in a PhD.

all the best

keith russell
Newcastle OZ

>>> Ian Rooney <[log in to unmask]> 04/19/05 5:51 PM >>>

Hi Pradeep and Keith

I couldn't agree more with Pradeep, allowing students to remove themselves
from their emotionally attach designs (concepts) can only be a good thing
and allowing criticism (design audit) to helps them move their ideas forward
with out knocking self-confidence is surely to be encouraged.

It might be childish, but it is the very essence of childishness' innocents
and naivety that allows undergraduates to explore their creatively and think
in an innovative ways. This is fundamental to building their confidence and
developing their self identity. Undergraduates who enter the world as a
practionier will have a life time to get use to 'criticism'.



Ian Järvelä-Rooney, Lahti Institute of Design, Finland





On 19/4/05 6:46 am, "Keith Russell" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear Pradeep
> 
> the problem re-surfaces - you say "The students are eventually
> encouraged to stand back and evaluate their own designs."
> 
> The tools of distancing and objectification simply isolate the aspects
> being looked at - the "actual design" is allowed its magic priority -
> indeed, it is now defended by the partial critique. The issues raised
> become badges of authenticity that sit proud of the persisting
> subject-object.
> 
> It might be polite to allow people to keep the "face of the maker". But,
> it is childish.
> 
> keith russell
> newcastle OZ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>>> Pradeep G Yammiyavar <[log in to unmask]> 04/19/05 3:11 PM >>>
> Hi Terry and Carma,
> 
> To me the word 'criticism' seems to connote  'unwelcome comments'. While
> it has a history of use and acceptance in fields dealing predominantly
> with aesthetics , it will have problems when used in fileds connected to
> Technology and Engineering. In such fields, apart from other things,
> 'constraints', over which the person designing has no say , tend to
> optimise final designs.
> 
> Often I have noticed that students of design are unable to detach their
> personality with their out puts. Any "criticism" of their work is
> automatically taken as criticism of the person behind the work.
> Unfortunately this attitude is likely to be carried over by the designer
> into practice. Most designers are touchy about their designs being
> "criticised".
> 
> To overcome this I would like to share annother another aproch that I
> teach students of Design. I call it "Design Audit" insted of crticisam.
> Using a farme work (huristic) which is some what like the "360 degree
> appraisal" as used in job evaluation and feed back by HRD personel, the
> student is taught to evaluate and 'audit' a design .  Factors that
> matter
> to humans are treated under " Usability Engineering" where as other
> factors are treated under materials , manufacture etc. Aesthetics is
> approched both as a 'function' as well as appearance with enough
> tollerance for individual tastes and likeing. The students are
> eventually
> encouraged to stand back and evaluate their own designs.
> 
> 
> Pradeep. Yammiyavar Department of Design , IITG India.
>