Terry
I don't think that I understand your attack on design history. You seem 
to be suggesting that it should be removed from degrees in Art & 
Design. That is just silly for reasons given below. But if you are 
suggesting that the way it is taught needs re thinking then I would 
agree.

Design is about CHANGE. If things didn't change, there would be no need 
for designers as we know them. What use is creativity if things stay 
the same. So we MUST encourage people to think about change ie history.
Unfortunately, much of contemporary design history is not about change. 
It is in danger of becoming a branch of cultural studies, concentrating 
on 'meaning' rather than change.

When a subject concentrates on theory and forgets its history, it can 
become sterile. Something like this has happened to sociology. It does 
not have much to say about how and why societies change. The one guy 
who has attempted to write about change in society is Anthony Giddens 
and he is just ignorant about Darwin. His standard text book, 
'Sociology', went through three editions all of which stated that 
Charles Darwin was an ordained minister who went round the world twice. 
Neither of these two statements is true.
Anyone who has taught in schools, knows that the best way to get across 
concepts involves repetition  and this is best done through different 
examples of the concept in use. Complex concepts have to be built up 
from simpler concepts and this can be done historically.

When I was at school, we were asked what are things made of. The answer 
was developed historically, beginning with earth air fire water.
The old theory of phlogiston was taught because it is important for 
pupils to realise that science CHANGES (like design). If you leave 
history out of science, then pupils come to believe that science is 
stuff written in books that you have to learn, whereas real science is 
about changing what is in the books.

Terry wants to emphasise theory but this decade's theory is the next 
decades history. In the case of architecture, there was a time when 
modernism was THE theory but any architect who stuck with that would 
have been out of a job. Designers trained in the 1950s thought that
Festival of Britain style was the best and it had theory to support it. 
But that soon went. Theory should not be taught without the realisation 
that theories change. And that needs examples of change and that needs 
history.

[log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: PHD-DESIGN automatic digest system <[log in to unmask]>
To: PHD-DESIGN <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 0:07
Subject: PHD-DESIGN Digest - 20 Aug 2012 to 21 Aug 2012 (#2012-199)

[log in to unmask]>Subject: Design Education - Rethinking the role of 
Design HistoryHello,

Erik's posting  about Design History brings to attention its 
academicallyrather weird position in university-based Design Education 
curricula. Until relatively recently (since the 60s), Design education 
in Art andDesign  has  lacked theory foundations. Instead, it has used 
guidelines suchas 'contrast', 'repetition', 'colour wheel' etc combined 
with teachingdesigners about what has been done in the past from 
examples, via DesignHistory courses..   In the  non-academic craft 
context prior to Design being taught inuniversities,  teaching design 
history makes sense as a way of teachingthrough examples of the work of 
others. In that craft design educationenvironment design history has a 
central role.  Design education in the Art and Design realm  is now, 
however, a universitydiscipline with increased use of theory that 
encapsulates and providesincreased generalizable knowledge compared to 
observing past examples ofdesigned artefacts .  In university, subjects 
are taught without this dependence on reviewinghistorical examples.  
All other disciplines in this academic context, focusprimarily on 
teaching theory, concepts and theory-based practices.Historical issues 
are integrated into that teaching and hence, there is noneed for a 
purely historical course to be a major element in theircurricula. For 
example,  If a course was teaching the use of Planck'sconstant , it 
would occur in a  theory course and, in focusing on thetheory, may in 
passing mention the historical knowledge that Planckidentified it in 
1900. Certainly, the use of Planck's constant  would not betaught 
primarily via  History course and the theory derived there. The 
sameframing  happens in all academic subjects including History. In  
the discipline of History in university, the educational use 
ofhistorical analyses differs from that common in Design .  
Educationally,historical analysis typically offers three benefits:  a)  
as a means ofteaching  the skills of reasoning  and critical thinking 
that engendersawareness of and avoidance of fallacy and bias ; b) as a 
corrective tocurrent biases and false assumptions; and, c) as an 
exposure to thedevelopment over time of social considerations. The 
latter, however, isalmost certainly more easily taught in ways other 
than by using history asthe primary frame. It seems that design 
education is currently disadvantaged by using DesignHistory  where more 
theoretically-based courses would be more appropriate,and design 
education does not take advantage of the above three benefits ofusing 
historical  analyses in the Design History courses. The above seems to  
suggest the transition of Design into universityrequires changes to the 
balance of the curricula that reduces the role ofDesign history as a 
primary means of design education. Part of that change,as all other 
disciplines have discovered,   is a significant reduction inthe role of 
historical examples in education. The requirement fordisciplines to 
develop theory is to improve efficiency and effectiveness inteaching, 
learning, and professional practice. Experience in most areas ofdesign 
that have already made the transition to universities are thatdesigners 
who are taught primarily via generalizable theory constructsrather than 
historical examples can design across more realms, do it morereliably 
and better address design issues that are not contiguous with 
pastexamples.  Taken together, it appears there is a need to rethink 
Design Education inways that have a much less central  role for   
'Design History', and,  interms of the length of time Design education 
has now been a universitydiscipline, this rethinking would appear to be 
becoming overdue.   Thepotential benefits are better thinking, better 
skilled and more creativedesign graduates with more employment 
opportunities. This, in practical andethical terms, would seem to trump 
the costs of avoiding rewriting curriculaand moving away from practices 
of an earlier era.  Best wishes,Terence==Dr Terence Love, FDRS, 
AMIMechE, PMACM, MISIPhD, B.A. (Hons) Eng, P.G.C.ESchool of Design and 
Art, Curtin University, Western Australia PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks, 
Western Australia 6030 <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]   
+61 (0)4 3497 5848==   ------------------------------