Dear all,
Perhaps Terry's post (and earlier posts) can be taken to discuss the concept of "judgement"?
The wish for precise measurements of quality and effect in my opinion indicate striving towards making the judgement of designers and clients impersonal and "objective". The practice however is today dominated by a strong dependence on the personal judgement. (For instance, as they have been put forward in other posts; Apple's choice of using the iPhone OS on the iPad rather than the MacOS.) In the same way that an artist is depending on hers/his judgement in producing, and even more, in putting forward a work of art, people in the design/Design businesses are depending on their judgements.
Ultimately the view on this is, like Ken discussed, connected with a person's worldview. Terry appears to view the possibility of a objective (if that is the right word) world both possible and desirable. Others (I for one) do not want or believe it possible to replace judgement with objectivity, for various reasons.
Never less, while waiting or working for a objective world in the sense of complete, undisputed and mechanistic knowledge of the areas covered by design/Design (I am not sure I am able to appreciate the difference between design and Design) there seem to be little option than to resort to judgement.
At least some art schools seem to make a good job in training students in developing their judgement and also to discuss judgement. This appears to be very useful in design. But as art schools often are devoted to visual arts, there may be a need to develop similar curriculums covering non-visual areas, whatever those may be. Maybe part of Terry's concerns is that important areas of judgement is not covered in art schools?
I understand that Kant devoted a whole "Critique" to the concept of Judgement, which may indicate that it is or should be a major concern.
Or am I perhaps barking in the wrong forrest?
(It would not be the first time, but it offers never less a good opportunity for learning...)
Best Regards,
Lars
PS Robert: Does being the most well paid artist at the Vaxholm art fair count as being "good at art"? ;-)
.........................................................................
LARS ALBINSSON
+46 (0) 70 592 70 45
[log in to unmask]
AFFILIATIONS:
MAESTRO MANAGEMENT AB
CALISTOGA SPRINGS RESEARCH INSTITUTE
UNIVERSITY OF BORÅS
LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY
.........................................................................
10 jun 2010 kl. 11.27 skrev Robert Harland:
Hi Terry.
I should make it clear that I'm a person who thirty years ago, school teachers labelled 'good at art'. (I imagine you were told you were 'good at science'). That meant something to me then. And it does now. (But I've never been interested in being an artist, beyond the romantic idea that I might play for Liverpool or sing like Elton John).
But, I do value the way artists think, the work they do, and their motivation to make visible and exhibit (you might say 'disseminate') their work, as much as I recognise the artistry in great football or popular music. I actively seek out 'stages' where such performances take place. I acknowledge wholeheartedly that it is helpful to me in my work as a design practitioner, educator and researcher. Because, whenever I need to give form to an idea (visual or verbal) I cannot ignore the influence of art and artistry, amongst many other factors.
So I disagree with your point:
> I'm suggesting the influences of Art are especially unhelpful to the 7% and
> merely generally unhelpful to the other 93%.
With regard to design research, (as opposed to my adolescent dreams), doing design research (as I've been training to do for the last six years or so) constantly refers me to the values more consistent with qualitative than quantitative approaches. What I learned at 'art school' has enabled me to identify comfortably with qualitative research. Had someone explained this to me in the early 80s, I possibly would have pursued a research career earlier than I did, and this is where I acknowledge your point (if I am interpreting it correctly). But this is more to do wider historical, education and political issues stretching back to the 1840s, than the privileging of 'Art' in 'Art Schools' (and if 'Art Schools' cannot privilege Art, who should?).
I may be in the minority on this list in terms of people who identify with being told they were 'good at art' (please give me a show of hands if this means something to you). But most people I know who have been through an Art and Design foundation course in the UK, are able to make a clear distinction between Art and Design and appreciate the value of both, rather than see one as a threat to the other. They do this because they opted to apply for an undergraduate degree that was more one than the other. In the 1970-80s, and since, this generally meant choosing between Fine Art, 3D Design, Graphic Design or Textiles/Fashion Design.
So when you say:
> One thing, some recent comments seem excessively protective of, and give
privilege to, Art over Design.
it should not be surprising that some are 'excessively protective'. You threaten the personal and professional identity of some people with your comments.
And yet, from my recent attempts to understand qualitative research, what 'artists' seem to do in their practice is closely aligned with approaches to qualitative research.
Art and Design education in the UK is dynamic at the moment, and attempting to embrace a widespread research culture. In my view 'Art and Design' educators have much to learn from more established research fields (as I know you have been keen to point out in the past). But we should be careful not to dismiss the influence of art on and in some design. I say this because I suspect there are still be many 16 year old pupils who are being told they are 'good at art'. If we try and continue to build an understanding of 'Arts Research', these pupils might also be good at Research.
Perhaps even Design Research.
Regards
Robert
On 10 Jun 2010, at 02:52, Terence Love wrote:
> Robert,
> You misunderstand me.
> I'm suggesting the influences of Art are especially unhelpful to the 7% and
> merely generally unhelpful to the other 93%.
> One thing, some recent comments seem excessively protective of, and give
> privilege to, Art over Design.
> This provides some support for the first half of the suggestion - that the
> general understanding of Design is corrupted by being reinterpreted through
> the norms of Art.
> Best regards,
> Terry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Harland [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, 10 June 2010 6:36 AM
> To: Terence Love
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Design - the problem of Art
>
> So, Terry, being as you are now quoting percentages, is your initial
> point that Art is 'helpful' to 7% of Design disciplines but
> 'unhelpful' to the other 93% of Design disciplines? If so, that suits
> me fine (and others it seems), and I simply wonder why those who might
> be in the majority should be so concerned. I must admit I did have the
> impression from your initial email that you seem to be suggesting some
> kind of 'ethnic cleansing'. Or did I simply read too much into it?
> Robert.
>
>
> On 9 Jun 2010, at 17:13, Terence Love wrote:
>
>> Only 7% or so of Design disciplines are directly related to Art as
>> in the
>> UK's 'Art and Design' group.
>
>
>
|