Francois and all,
There is some truth to the general reflection that Francois makes, at least
if we are to base it on some design programs in several institutions in
North America. For example, there are design programs in the United States
-- industrial, interior and graphic, to name three general areas -- that
have not moved beyond vocational training although they are located in a
university setting, some of which are research intensive universities. These
programs appear to take advantage of the prestige that comes from being
within a university without embracing the responsibility attached with it,
such as research, publication and scholarship. This is indeed a missed
opportunity given that effective design has long moved beyond a craft-based
model into an activity with an increasing desire to validate its
contribution via knowledge and evidence.
Jacques Giard, PhD
Professor and Director
MSD/PhD Programs
Herberger Institute for Design and the Arts
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287-2105
P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
On 9/12/09 7:20 PM, "François Nsenga" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
> Dear all
> All along my school years at University, in the two Industrial
> Design Departments I have gone through (1 year as a freshman,
> exceptionally 5 years for a Bachelorıs degree, and 2 years for a
> Masterıs), I have always voiced it loud and by all means my total
> disagreement with exhibitions and critique of students work as the
> indicated pedagogical (training and assessment) approach and/or
> method at University level.
> I used to argue and still do - my position as follows:
> University level training aims, approach, and methods are ought
> to be different from those in Fine Arts and in Applied Arts or
> Technical School (Arts and Crafts). The core purpose of these latter
> institutions is to train apprentices to make particular things. These
> things made are in one case pieces of art to gaze upon and/or enjoy
> through other senses, and in the other case, they are useful,
> practical things to be used in different contexts. Whether in Fine
> Arts or in Technical/Crafts training, in both cases, obviously the
> best way to be in a position to appreciate both the thing made and
> the level of skills learned by the apprentices, renown Masters
> intern and/or guests - must lookı at the thing made, scrutinize
> it in order to denote ³the merits and demerits², and finally
> render a judgement accordingly. And this judgment is paramount both
> for the apprentices admission into the respective Corporations ranks,
> and for the Masters-custodians to ensure the (advantageously
> exclusive) position and perenniality of the Corporation and its
> standards. So, in this view and context, mid-term or end of session
> officialı and publicı critique of studentsı outputs is
> justified.
> The problem arose however when the Arts&Crafts training was
> integrated as such within University teaching system, without much
> core adaptation other than just a few administrative fittings.
> At University level, training consists of learning how to initiate
> and do research on universalsı with a view to increment the
> knowledge on these. For instance, the case of our concern is that of
> knowledge on those universals related to artefacts make and use. And
> students are should be - tested on their ability to find and
> discuss, i.e. reason, and eventually, but necessarily, prescribe to -
> and implement - themselves or to others the most sound and more
> beneficial universals for the betterment of the community. That is,
> at least in my view, the ultimate aim in training at University
> level; quite different from training in an Arts&Crafts School.
> So, it is not only the modalities of critique, review, or whatever
> other concept of studentsı work assessment ("material space",
> "discursive space", time alotment, etc.) that have to be more
> searched and cleary determined. I also believe it is the
> institutionalized confusion in training for our profession, following
> its partially or even unreasoned 'housing' in Universities, that needs
> to be cleared first. An often repeated confirmation of the confused
> situation, in the parallel thread: Current Trends in Design
> Research....
> Francois
>
> Montreal
|