Dear Robert,

Thank you for your message.

One of the problems (raised in Design in 1963 by O'Doherty in the first
Design Research conference in the UK) is that any definition that  
includes
too much defines nothing. That is such as definition is useless in  
theory
and research terms. O'Doherty's criticism was of definitions of Design  
along
the lines of 'Design is everything'. It applies just as much to  
descriptions
of Art.

A second problem of the field of Design is that the research  
literature is
stuffed full of weak and careless theorising. (If you want to test this,
publish any two pages from your favourite design theorist and ask this  
group
to epistemologically  analyse them). Design researchers as a group  
have been
notorious for poor theorising. Fortunately, for PhD students (PhD-
Design...) the situation is changing.

Dutton's list seems to incorporate both of the above problems. It lists
'core ' items of design that are common to many other practices. From
Dutton's  list, you could happily infer that Art was a sub-field of
Engineering.

Implicit in your call is that if people agreed with your list, then  
Design
must therefore be dependent on Art. This is a fallacy of the excluded  
middle
(cat has four legs , dog has four legs therefore all dogs are cats).  
It's an
example of the second problem above. From Dutton's  list, it might be
inferred that the core training for Design is Taikwondo or  
Astrology ....

Being explicit about the relationship  between Design and Art needs more
awareness, and more care to identify  differences rather than broad  
brush
over the cracks.

Best wishes,
Terry
____________________

Dr. Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM
School of Design and Art
Director Design-focused Research Group, Design Out Crime Research Group
Researcher, Digital Ecosystems and Business Intelligence Institute
Associate,  Planning and Transport Research Centre
Curtin University, PO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845
Mob: 0434 975 848, Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629, [log in to unmask]
Member of Internaitonal  Scientific Council, UNIDCOM/ IADE, Lisbon,  
Portugal
Honorary Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise  
Development
Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
____________________


-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and  
related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of  
Robert
Harland
Sent: Friday, 11 June 2010 3:59 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: art and design.

Thanks Ranulph.

Further to your brief post, and relating to the broad question 'What
is Art?', the twelve 'core' items listed below are said to summarise
the cross-cultural features of works of art and qualities of the
experience of art.

I have not summarised them (most are self explanatory) but thought
that in keeping with the debate on the list titled 'Design - the
problem of Art' I wondered if design researchers on the list envisage
a future for their work without all of these features:

1 Direct pleasure
2 Skill and virtuosity
3 Style
4 Novelty and curiosity
5 Criticism
6 Representation
7 Special focus
8 Expressive individuality
9 Emotional saturation
10 Intellectual challenge
11 Art traditions and institutions
12 Imaginative experience

Dutton, D. (2009). The art instinct : beauty, pleasure, and human
evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Regards, Robert



On 10 Jun 2010, at 17:07, Ranulph Glanville wrote:

> Art, of course, means cunning.
>
> So does design.
>
> QED (whatever it was that had to be demonstrated, that is).
>
> Ranulph