Chris wrote:
>I don't imagine that the USA is any different from other countries where
>designers migrate into all kinds of roles and it is certainly true that
>the USA leads the way in bringing new kinds of people into the
>professional arena of designing.
This echoes the touchstone for many designers - Raymond Loewy, the guy
that in many ways helped create the profession of design (as we know it
today)...
From Wikipedia..
An early accomplishment was the design of a successful model aircraft,
which won the James Gordon Bennett Cup in 1908.... He served in the French
Army during World War I. Loewy was wounded in combat and received the
Croix de Guerre. He boarded a ship to America in 1919, with only his
French officer's uniform and forty dollars in his pocket. In Loewy's early
years in the U.S., he lived in New York and found work as a window
designer for department stores, including Macy's, in addition to working
as a fashion illustrator for Vogue and Harper's Bazaar. In 1929 he
received his first industrial design commission,
Of more interest for the recent posts was Loewy's opinion of his
'stakeholders' - the people for who he designed. It is very clear to me
that he had his paymaster in mind when he designed.
"The most beautiful curve is a rising sales graph."
"Industrial design keeps the customer happy, his client in the black and
the designer busy."
and grantedly - slightly more user focused...
"I believe one should design for the advantage of the largest mass of
people, first and always. That takes care of ideologies and sociologies. I
think one also should try to elevate the aesthetic level of society. And
to watch quality control always, while insisting others do, too."
For all the mention of how designers have changed - I cannot see any
reason, excepting digital/ interface deisgn that his views are not EXACTLY
the same today -as when he started his design career.....
Glenn
PHD-DESIGN automatic digest system <[log in to unmask]>
Sent by: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
related research in Design <[log in to unmask]>
10/01/2007 07:00 PM
Please respond to
PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design <[log in to unmask]>
To
[log in to unmask]
cc
Subject
PHD-DESIGN Digest - 30 Sep 2007 to 1 Oct 2007 (#2007-228)
There are 5 messages totalling 553 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Disciplines, Fuss, etc.
2. disciplines
3. Re What's the fuss about disciplines (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 09:12:17 +1000
From: Keith Russell <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Disciplines, Fuss, etc.
Dear Johann
Me fears I have been well disciplined by your challenge?
The approach taken by Socrates in the Meno can be seen as
anti-discipline and/or as the discipline of anti-discipline.
The Zeno paradoxes are only slightly different to the Zen koans. The
paradoxes accumulate attempted answers and alternative hypotheses as if
the answer could not be formulated; the koans accumulated commentary as
if the answers don't exist but answering does.
Both these methods are disciplines. The discipline of using a flat file
to make a key for a key way has some of the cognitive and psychological
and experiential features of paradoxes and koans. It can have a
successful outcome in terms of skill-as-knowledge. To deny a student
access to such skill-as-knowledge would seem to be perverse?
the real football is now over so back to less serious things
cheers
keith
>>> Johann van der Merwe <[log in to unmask]> 09/30/07 9:49 PM >>>
To all
This, from Keith, I simply cannot allow to pass unchallenged = According
to Plato (writing on behalf of the supposed Socrates), the words were:
"Do you observe, Meno, that I am not teaching the boy anything, but only
asking him questions?" - which to me means asking transformational
questions, while "the boy" is kept looking at the context of the
problem-based environment, NOT the so-called context of the non-existing
"discipline", and NOT kept looking at "the master" of the discipline who
has all the answers. That is exactly the point of Plato's dialogue with
the wilful Meno. Your example is somewhat unfortunate - as my own
students will testify - students are not keys to fit a lock, but
"unlockers" of any key-like (very "wicked") real world problems,
something they cannot achieve by being programmed with pre-digested
"knowledge" (another of my pet hates = "knowledge" in the
world-out-there does not exist, merely a surfeit of information).
I quite agree with the idea backing your view of theory (vey much like
ethics, which cannot be addressed directly). Students of design cannot
and must not be "shown" anything at all (and I for one flatly refuse to
"discipline" anyone) - they are quite capable of "seeing" for themselves
- once they have been shown the various and possible ways of seeing
(Klauss) that exist at the moment ... and what "shows itself" when using
theory as a way of seeing is the knowing structure of the
student/designer - NOT the enabling structure of the disciplne (which is
non-existent, information being no substitute for individual (unknowable
to others) knowledge).
Johann
Nog eenmaal 'n klip in die bos
Plato. Meno. Benjamin Jowett, translator. URL:
<www3.eu.spiritweb.org/Plato/Meno/part-01.html>
>>> Keith Russell <[log in to unmask]> 09/30/07 8:17 AM >>>
Dear Klaus and Terry,
The point I would make about discipline as the ground of
skill-as-knowledge is: a particular skill cannot be acquired without
discipline - that is, persistent practice, with formative advice, feed
back and encouragement. My example might be, the use of a flat file to
make a key fit a key-way.
In this respect, discipline (skill-as-knowledge) is like theory - theory
is the showing of that which does not show itself (theorem versus
maxum). The slave in Plato's Meno needs to be shown - to be disciplined.
All the other negatives come about through the abuse of power in the
unequal relationship of teacher/learner.
the ARL final will start in a few hours. I am practicing patience as
part of my discipline.
cheers
keith
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 00:38:11 -0400
From: Juris <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: disciplines
In the spirit of thinking outside the box, and simply adding another =20
voice to the cacophony, I offer this take on discipline, fields, and =20
power:
In a discussion of how Michel Foucault conceptualized power in =20
contemporary democratic liberalism (as having gone away from the =20
power of "the prince" to take life, and toward the power of "the =20
state apparatus" to manage life), I wrote the passage pasted below in =20=
my dissertation (from Chapter 6). Looking back on it, I would =20
summarize by saying that Foucault's notion of discipline incorporated =20=
both the teaching-learning/master-pupil valence (especially in the =20
sense of an internalization of 'lessons'), and the expert-led or =20
defined silos-of-knowledge valence (classifications and the =20
subsequent creation of certain subjectivities), to talk about how =20
liberal democratic forms of order and hierarchy are formed and =20
maintained through, and, actually, even dependent upon, the rubrics =20
of freedom, knowledge, individuality, progress, etc. In other words, =20=
to actually govern the 'free', one must become an administrator of =20
'freedom' as a lived concept.
In the previous chapter of my dissertation, I discuss Pierre =20
Bourdieu's ideas and use them in an analysis of the symbolic capital =20
of creativity in the field of design. In one section I discuss =20
Bourdieu's notion of 'taste' and how it actively generates a =20
misrecognition of class domination while it legitimizes the =20
principles of hierarchization that 'justify' domination. In other =20
words, the field of design, in a Bourdieuvin sense, is a field of =20
symbolic power, where the symbolic capitals of innovation, =20
creativity, multidisciplinarity, etc., are deployed in a strategy of =20
position taking, or the establishment of distinction within the field =20=
(which is, of course, in flux, and crucially connected to other =20
fields of symbolic capital also in flux - like architecture, the =20
media, the economy, politics, etc.)
Combining Foucault's take on discipline with Bourdieu's notion of the =20=
field of symbolic power (both woefully under-explained here) I argue =20
in my dissertation that in contemporary 'globalization', design is a =20
central field of symbolic power, vitally connected to other fields of =20=
symbolic power, and actively working to win the struggle to =20
legitimately define the social world in designerly terms, and thus =20
transform the way in which a 'freedom' is administered. The =20
following quote from Bourdieu could be understood to explain this =20
further if one keeps in mind that designers are, among other things, =20
"specialists in symbolic production":
the different classes and class fractions are engaged in a symbolic =20
struggle
properly speaking, one aimed at imposing the definition of the social =20=
world that is
best suited to their interests... These classes can engage in this =20
struggle either
directly, in the symbolic conflicts of everyday life, or else by =20
proxy, via the
struggle between the different specialists in symbolic production =20
(full-time
producers), a struggle over the monopoly of legitimate symbolic =20
violence (cf.
Weber), that is, of the power to impose (or even to inculcate) the =20
arbitrary
instruments of knowledge and expression (taxonomies) of social =20
reality =96 but
instruments whose arbitrary nature is not realized as such. The =20
field of symbolic
production is a microcosm of the symbolic struggle between classes; =20
it is by
serving their own interests in the struggle within the field of =20
production (and only
to this extent) that producers serve the interests of groups outside =20
the field of
production. [Bourdieu 1991:167-168]
=46rom Chapter 6, "Design as Discipline" in Milestone, Juris. 2007.
=20=
Universities, Cities, Design, and Development: An Anthropology of =20
Aesthetic Expertise. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, =20=
Temple University.
Foucault therefore offers the notion of =91disciplinary power=92, which
=20=
=93is quite different
from and more complicated, dense and pervasive than a set of laws or =20
a state apparatus=94
(Foucault 1980b:158). This power
is no longer a matter of bringing death into play in the field of =20
sovereignty, but of
distributing the living in the domain of value and utility. Such a =20
power has to
qualify, measure, appraise and hierarchize, rather than display =20
itself in its
murderous splendor; it does not have to draw the line that separates =20
the enemies
of the sovereign from his obedient subjects; it effects =20
distributions around the
norm. [Foucault 1990:144]
It was this kind of conceptualization of power, as a technology of =20
classification and
legitimization, which Foucault and others have so effectively used to =20=
show how power actually
works through (and lives in) the delineation of the individual =20
subject (see Foucault 1982, 1990),
through the production of discourses like =93public health=94 and =20
=93empowerment=94 (see Cruikshank
1994), or =93experience=94 (Joan Scott 1992), and through the regulatory =
=20
control and organization of
populations (Shore and Wright 1997).
To look at power in this way, as =93disciplines=94 that bring together,
=20=
=93technical capacities,
the game of communications, and the relationships of power=94, is to =20
look beyond all of these
things toward =93power relations=94 (Foucault 1982:219). Power =93is a =
way =20
in which certain actions
modify others... an action upon action, on existing actions or on =20
those which may arise in the
present or the future=94 (Foucault 1982:220). Therefore, power is not
=20=
the forcing of someone=92s
hand or the use of force against another, but instead it is =93a total
=20=
structure of actions brought to
bear upon possible actions... a way of acting upon an acting subject =20
by virtue of their acting or
being capable of action=94 (Foucault 1982:220). In other words, =93power
=
=20
is exercised only over
free subjects, and only in so far as they are free=94 (Foucault =20
1982:221). This is the conceptual
basis of Foucault=92s notions of governmentality. This creation of =20
=91discipline=92 (in both senses of
the word as intellectual field and as self control) is necessary for =20
the effective governing of
populations in modernity.
=46rom Chapter 5, "Design as Commodity" in Milestone, Juris. 2007. =20=
Universities, Cities, Design, and Development: An Anthropology of =20
Aesthetic Expertise. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, =20=
Temple University.
For Bourdieu power is really just the
possession and ability to efficiently mobilize symbolic capital;
The field of power is the space of relations of force between agents =20
or between
institutions having in common the possession of the capital necessary =20=
to occupy
the dominant positions in different fields (notably economic or =20
cultural)=94
[Bourdieu 1996:215]
These same relations of force are in action in any field. It is
a power of constituting the given through utterances, of making =20
people see and
believe, of confirming or transforming the vision of the world and, =20
thereby, action
on the world and thus the world itself [Bourdieu 1991:170]
However, Bourdieu contends, this power must remain unrecognizable, =20
and it does this by being
=93misrecognized as arbitrary=94 (Bourdieu 1991:170). What this means =
is =20
that belief in the =91truth=92
value of any declaration depends on who says it (their authority to =20
judge) and on how well it
actually coheres to =91reality=92 (or appears to be un-opinionated), =20
which makes the successful
constitution, or construction of an explanation of reality of utmost =20
importance.
Juris Milestone, Ph.D.
Department of Anthropology
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA
On Sep 30, 2007, at 7:00 AM, Popowsky wrote:
> To the list members,
>
> Discipline is expert-led .
> It is a term used
> to point at/ or refer to
> an expert-led action.
> Kung Fu is a discipline.
>
> Field is a term used - see Bourdieu [Pierre]-
> to define / to circumscribe a common ground
> resulting of the conjunction
> of different/various disciplines.
> Martial Arts, the conjunction of various martial disciplines,
> is a field.
>
> According to Bourdieu, a field has
> an added symbolic value.
>
> If Design is a field ["the field of design"],it is
> because different/various expert-led disciplines
> conjoin and create a common ground.
>
> This "common ground" should have
> an added symbolic value. Which is it?
>
> Dr. Michal Popowsky
> Betsalel Academy of Arts and Design
> History and Theory Dept.
> Jerusalem
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 09:03:20 +0100
From: Chris Rust <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Re What's the fuss about disciplines
Danny Butt quoted
> ...This could just be amusing, if only all five did not take their
> interpretation of 'subject,' on the sub-reflective level of
> obviousness, to be the only right one...
This seems to me to be one of the truly interesting and important issues
and one which I have observed in practice*. The notion of
"interdisciplinarity" depends on the existence of individuals who can
stand aside from their own background and notice the possibilities in
other people's concepts. I have been extremely lucky to work with a few
people like that, they have all been both very experienced and very open
to moving on to something new. Perhaps Mieke's characterisation of
"eager young scholars" is part of the point and mirrors Jacques'
characterisation of discipline-bound students. It takes time to notice
the different valid ways that people operate. Despite Jacques' remarks,
I don't imagine that the USA is any different from other countries where
designers migrate into all kinds of roles and it is certainly true that
the USA leads the way in bringing new kinds of people into the
professional arena of designing. On that basis I prefer to consider
designing, when it is focused on experience rather than technology, as a
single fluid discipline or field, rather than worry about sub-divisions
within it.
best wishes from Sheffield
Chris
*for a simple example, I have always been interested by the way that
many engineers find it difficult to conceive of a "model" as being
anything other than a mathematical construct. In a group project I was
introduced as being responsible for "physical modelling". A day later
one of the group confessed that he had been puzzling over this
description and could only assume that I was there to produce
mathematical models of physical characteristics.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 10:13:58 +0100
From: Eduardo Corte Real <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Re What's the fuss about disciplines
Hello,
"a convocation of black-suited Jesuits"
as Ken wrote.
Well here's something from a guy from a country in which the Jesuits
highly
structured the educational system.
It got me thinking, this disciplines fuss, about the use we give to the
term, maybe as a result of Jesuit organization.
In Portugal, in Junior education from 10 to 17/18 of age the courses
taught
are called Disciplines, disciplinas. Things like Geography, History,
Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry (these two are taught together very
wisely).
In the university we called the courses "cadeiras" meaning "chairs". I
used
to say in the more and more distant days of my youth: I must get 8
"cadeiras" to get through the first year.
This means that, independently of the master, the disciplines are steady
(coherent) enough to be taught by a large number of teachers. Or steady
enough to be taught to the wholeness of a society.
As for chairs, cadeiras, they stress the individual responsibility of the
university professor in making/giving science.
In this sense university chairs are transdisciplinary since they overcome
steadiness of disciplines and in this sense also undisciplined. Most of
it,
come to think about it (the chairs) in order to become transdisciplinary
they start to be undisciplined by being multidisciplined.
Well, I hope it helps,
Cheers,
Eduardo
PS: My doctoral vest really looks like a Jesuit priest's. My younger
daughter said to me once: You look like Professor Snape, dad.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Rust" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: Re What's the fuss about disciplines
> Danny Butt quoted
>> ...This could just be amusing, if only all five did not take their
>> interpretation of 'subject,' on the sub-reflective level of
obviousness,
>> to be the only right one...
>
> This seems to me to be one of the truly interesting and important issues
> and one which I have observed in practice*. The notion of
> "interdisciplinarity" depends on the existence of individuals who can
> stand aside from their own background and notice the possibilities in
> other people's concepts. I have been extremely lucky to work with a few
> people like that, they have all been both very experienced and very open
> to moving on to something new. Perhaps Mieke's characterisation of
"eager
> young scholars" is part of the point and mirrors Jacques'
characterisation
> of discipline-bound students. It takes time to notice the different
valid
> ways that people operate. Despite Jacques' remarks, I don't imagine that
> the USA is any different from other countries where designers migrate
into
> all kinds of roles and it is certainly true that the USA leads the way
in
> bringing new kinds of people into the professional arena of designing.
On
> that basis I prefer to consider designing, when it is focused on
> experience rather than technology, as a single fluid discipline or
field,
> rather than worry about sub-divisions within it.
>
> best wishes from Sheffield
> Chris
>
> *for a simple example, I have always been interested by the way that
many
> engineers find it difficult to conceive of a "model" as being anything
> other than a mathematical construct. In a group project I was introduced
> as being responsible for "physical modelling". A day later one of the
> group confessed that he had been puzzling over this description and
could
> only assume that I was there to produce mathematical models of physical
> characteristics.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 11:12:21 +0200
From: Wolfgang Jonas <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Re What's the fuss about disciplines
Dear Johann and others,
in the German-speaking debate regarding design=20
politics I proposed the mission statement: "Im=20
Bett zart - gegen Bullen hart", which was a=20
slogan in the students=B4 movement of the late=20
1960s.
Maybe one can translate it as: "tender in bed - tough against cops".
In applying this to the design context I wanted=20
to say: Internally, let us admit the fuzziness,=20
the conceptual weaknesses, the slow progess, etc.=20
Let us adopt the pluralism, the (still?) missing=20
foundations. But, externally, facing funding=20
agencies and university structures, let us act AS=20
IF we were an established discipline. Let us=20
PRETEND to have an own paradigm of knowing /=20
knowledge production, etc.
Just a remark,
have a nice day,
Jonas
__________
At 21:37 Uhr +0200 29.09.2007, Johann van der Merwe wrote:
>Harold & List
>There is no such thing as a "design discipline" - we are in the unique
>position of "not-owning" a groundless field of knowledge (Wolfgang
>Jonas) =3D which potentially means we can - if only temporarily and for a
>specific project - have access to any other discipline (or more
>accurately, a basket of disciplines).
>We have no discipline in the old-fashioned sense since "we" do not exist
>without the other - in design's case without the social structuration
>that is constantly changing ... try to pin that down!
>The closest to a "disciline" we should come is that of the bricoleur -
>we are / should be craftsmen using everything that is at & to hand.
>Johann
>PS: both Maritain aand Gadamer were against foundationalism / method in
>the sense of "restriction" =3D this is what Bruno Latour would call
>letting non-human actors determine who we are, because we begin to
>imagine a discipline as an "it" that can provide us with answers (where
>there are none)
>'n Klip in die bos ...
>
>
>
>>>> Harold Nelson <[log in to unmask]> 09/29/07 8:36 PM >>>
>Dear Jacques et al
>
>I am asked on occasion what academics mean when they use the term
>'discipline' (i.e. disciplinary, interdisciplinary,
>multidisciplinary, non-disciplinary etc.) . What are the working
>definitions being used in this case?
>
>Regards
>
>Harold Nelson
>
>
>On Sep 29, 2007, at 6:48 AM, Jacques Giard wrote:
>
>> Christ, John, and list members,
>>
>> On this same topic of disciplines, I was director of the School of
>> Design at
>> Arizona State University until very recently. The school was
>> typical of many
>> multidisciplinary settings.
>>
>
>
>
>Harold G. Nelson, Ph.D.
>www.haroldnelson.com
>President; Advanced Design Institute
>www.advanceddesign.org
>Trustee & Past-President; International Society for Systems Science
>www.isss.org
>Affiliated faculty, M. Eng., U. Wash.
>http://www.me.washington.edu/people/faculty/hgnelson/
------------------------------
End of PHD-DESIGN Digest - 30 Sep 2007 to 1 Oct 2007 (#2007-228)
****************************************************************
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email (and all attachments) is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain privileged and/or proprietary information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
|
