Hi Ken/Rob
As an addition here, I have recently read Rick Poynor's piece in Print
magazine in which he seems to suggest the art/design relationship is no
longer so clearly defined.
I'm not saying I necessarily agree, but thought it might be of interest.
http://www.printmag.com/Article/Observer-A-Report-from-the-Place-Formerly-Known-as-Graphic-Design
Cheers,
Alison
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Ken Friedman <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Rob,
>
> The important point here is critical inquiry. This is not a difference
> between pre-92 and post-92 universities, but between the “art and
> design” art school approach to design and the design science approach
> to design.
>
> To the degree that critical inquiry does differ between the
> universities of different eras, the issue distinguishes those that do
> well in addressing the university research mission and those that do
> not.
>
> But where it comes to design schools in particular, I’d argue that
> the problem lies with those that see design practice as “arts
> based,” rather than seeing design practice as a service profession
> with a richer range of responsibilities to clients, customers, and end
> users than to the artist creator of an artifact.
>
> The difference between art and design is simple. As artists, we serve
> ourselves. As designers, we serve those who own the problems that we are
> asked to help solve.
>
> I feel reasonably confident speaking to both points, since I am an
> artist with work in two current exhibitions in New York, one at the
> Museum of Modern Art, the other at the New York University Grey Art
> Gallery. As a designer, I’d also have to say that my art is free,
> speculative, and – I hope – interesting precisely because I do serve
> myself. As a designer, if I fail to serve others, I fail to do my job.
>
> Where it comes to design, the issues at stake have been clear for the
> past two decades. I tend to agree with Don on the challenges we face. My
> own entry to this debate is available at:
>
> http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/189707
>
> Warm wishes,
>
> Ken
>
> Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished
> Professor | Dean, Faculty of Design | Swinburne University of Technology
> | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] | Ph: +61
> 39214 6078 | Faculty
>
>
> Robert Harland wrote:
>
> —snip—
>
> From the very beginning, I was encouraged to undertake research
> training courses provided by the Graduate School, and the choice was
> wide-ranging. A quick glance back at what I elected to do in the early
> phase is listed below, the only compulsory course being the ‘Tradition
> of critique’.
>
> … It was bewildering to me, despite my experience in industry. But. I
> began to understand how established research subjects nurtured their
> future PhD students.
>
> Would you agree that in ‘art school’ based design education the
> emphasis has seemed to be on linking BA and Masters, rather than Masters
> and Doctoral level studies. Its often quoted that traditionally the
> terminal degree for art and design is MA, and this is consistent of
> those tutors who taught you and me.
>
> I wonder if this is a critical point of recent historical
> differentiation between pre/post 92 Universities in the UK, between art
> school/academia, between independent/co-dependent disciplines, between
> immature/mature research cultures.
>
> Of course, in the approach I experienced there was little empathy with
> the tradition of inquiry in arts based ‘design practice’, so there
> is an balance to be struck. But, does here lie one of the important
> challenges for the future of research in arts based education.
>
> —snip—
>
--
* * *
Dr. Alison Barnes
School of Graphic Design, LCC
University of the Arts, London
www.alisonbarnesonlineportfolio.tumblr.com
http://informationenvironments.academia.edu/AlisonBarnes/About
http://geo-graphic.blogspot.com/
|