Gunnar,
My response to you will be somewhat similar to the one I sent to Fil
earlier.
The point of my remark using the Balinese artisan was in the context of
the so-called bigger picture. As we dig deeper and deeper to define the
numerous divisions and sub-divisions of design we could easily fall into
the trap of not seeing the bigger picture, the too often quoted
forest-and-the-trees phenomenon. The example of the university is an
excellent one and, as you say, it is a double-edged sword. However, the
best presidents and deans that I have worked with were able to rise above
the institution's disciplinary zones, with all their implicit comfort and
internalization, and be transdisciplinary in their vision and actions.
That is, their own disciplinary background, narrow as it may have been,
did not limit their understanding of the bigger issues or hinder their
capacity for appropriate action.
As I see it, the situation in design need not be either/or; that is,
either limitless divisions or no divisions at all. What is needed is a
mindfulness that the discipline is a means to an end, nothing more. The
end is what matters.
Have a nice summer.
Jacques
On 6/15/12 1:28 PM, "Gunnar Swanson" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Jacques,
>
>On Jun 15, 2012, at 11:04 AM, Jacques Giard wrote:
>> As for me, the use of the Balinese saying (which I fully recognize is a
>> kind of cliché and most likely without evidence to support it) is my way
>> of stating that perhaps we need to look at what creates cohesion rather
>> than what divides us.
>
>I've always interpreted the (presumably apocryphal) response to mean that
>art (or Art) is a cultural construct and they don't happen to have that
>construct. We could discuss whether "Art" is a valuable construct but
>"everything we do the best we can" strikes me as not a particularly
>useful definition of much of anything.
>
>At this point, I'm not sure what advantages and disadvantages there are
>to parsing design specialties compared to divvying up design/not design.
>Specialization (in universities and otherwise) is the proverbial double
>edged sword. It pushes us toward excellence and narrow irrelevance. An
>absence of specialization pushes us toward mediocrity and holistic
>muddle.
>
>I'm quite curious about Fil's
>> if you remove all the domain-specific knowledge, whatever's left is
>>process knowledge that seems to be quite consistent across domains.
>
>I'll wait to see what that is rather than speculating as to whether the
>difference of this bit of subtraction is in any way central to designers
>who work in the specific domains or to the nature of the domains. I'm
>quite suspicious of the very idea of design that doesn't include
>designing so I'm interested in how this description plays out. (Fil--I
>hope you plan on sharing it with us.)
>
>
>Gunnar
>----------
>Gunnar Swanson
>East Carolina University
>graphic design program
>http://www.ecu.edu/cs-cfac/soad/graphic/index.cfm
>
>Gunnar Swanson Design Office
>1901 East 6th Street
>Greenville NC 27858
>USA
>
>[log in to unmask]
>+1 252 258 7006
>
>http://www.gunnarswanson.com
|