On Dec 22, 2013, at 10:04 PM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> The term 'usefulness' was intended to imply nothing more than seeing 'design
> fields' and everything to do with them as 'tools' created by humans to be
> used.

I'm not sure where to start. You constantly berate people for not understanding the complexity of systems but you gloss over the complexity of human life in a manner that seems like the "before" picture in a rather corny ad for a critical studies class. So start with: "useful" for who and how?

> In contrast to Ken's position,
> however, I expect reasoning to be solid and  referencing to others work

Luckily, the two of you reside in Australia. My impression is that between you and north is the location of Bartertown and a giant cage presided over by Tina Turner. Two men enter. One man leaves. Whoever comes out alive gets to go on to insult cops in Malibu.

> On the issue of 'design creativity' I'm presuming that means creating designs, 

So all designs that have been created are equally creative, the phrase is redundant, and the measure of creativity is total production of "designs"? It's been a while since I've been in Perth but my memory is that it's full of native speakers of  English so I'm guessing that you do know that this is not the way the term is normally understood. Given that, I find it hard to accept your ploy of innocent, guile-free communication.

> On the issue of ' a better way of thinking about design activity, practice,
> research and education', I guess it depends where you stand. I'm thinking
> towards 5, 10, and 30 year  timelines and finding it difficult to see how
> existing ways of thinking about design (in the Art and Design sense)  will
> work well in the future.

Given many of you statements and rhetorical ploys, I have no idea what you would claim are "existing ways of thinking about design (in the Art and Design sense)" so you got me there.

If you want to discuss any particular way of thinking about design, you know where to find me.

> automation of existing designer roles,  

That's a difficult problem and an even broader one if you remove "designer" from the sentence. 

In the past, you have suggested that the trend toward functions that were formally performed by graphic designers being automated by application programs would continue. I suspect that you're right. Your solution was that graphic designers should become programmers. Forgetting for a moment the question about whether graphic designers have the aptitudes and motivations required (any more than programmers have the aptitudes and motivations to be good graphic designers), how does the arithmetic work on that? If software eliminates, let's arbitrarily say 10% of the work for hundreds of thousands of graphic designers, does that provide tens of thousands of opportunities for full-time programming employment? (I also don't think that it's economically sustainable to have the entire population of Dearborn, Michigan employed making robots for automobile assembly plants. And how about much of the work of programmers being automated?)

It is worth mentioning that much of the work I used to do as a graphic designer is now performed by software (although I also now have many more tasks directly attributable to software use) but there are vastly more employed graphic designers today than there were in the mid 1980s. 

> increased levels of participation of females in advanced education worldwide,

Care to explain why this is significant?

> and
> significant transition of  the primary role of universities from knowledge
> production to holding institutions to reduce youth unemployment. This is a
> different picture than if one sees 'better design activity,  practice and
> education' in terms of  the thinking about design that has been around for
> the last century or  the 'design thinking' that has been fashionable for the
> last 30 years or so.

I've never been all that fashionable so I won't try to defend this particular straw man.

I would not claim that an art degree is a good choice for someone whose primary goal is guaranteed employment. I would be at a loss if asked what sort of degree would be a good choice for someone whose primary goal is guaranteed employment. I do know that your earlier claim about engineering being one is false.

A few years ago, a law degree from a top school in the US was a virtual guarantee of employment with high income. Not so much anymore. We do need to think about thirty years in the future but anyone who believes that we have a firm grip on employment patterns of 2043 is seriously delusional.

Of course, an engineering graduate has a better chance at a well-paid job right out of school than an art graduate. So what? Do we assume that art students could and should change majors? What would be the result if they all did just that?

(Note that I am not making any particular claim here about the ideal relationships between "art" and "art and design" in practice or in education.)

Your rumination about employment stats seem to dismiss self employment. Why? You seem to dismiss employment in fields other than design. Why? You seem to dismiss "design support" jobs including production jobs. Why?

In the end, it's not clear to me what you are claiming about usefulness or anything else.


Gunnar

Gunnar Swanson
East Carolina University 
graphic design program

http://www.ecu.edu/cs-cfac/soad/graphic/index.cfm
[log in to unmask]

Gunnar Swanson Design Office
1901 East 6th Street
Greenville NC 27858
USA

http://www.gunnarswanson.com
[log in to unmask]
+1 252 258-7006


-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------