Mike
So many points here to discuss that we should perhaps pick it up the next
time we meet at a conference. IASDR 2014 was the last, if you recall.
Hence, I'll dwell for a moment on the issue of present state and supposed
"transition" because I believe this is not a good way to define the
emergence of new fields related to Graphic Design. That is not to say
Graphic Design is not in transition, it always is. I'm just not convinced
it is morphing into something else.
<snip>
>Good question. Our current cohorts are about 50% Graphic Design and 25%
>Motion Design and 25% Interaction Design.
<snip>
This is consistent with my observations in the UK, and may suggest Graphic
Design remains the bedrock of institutional provision in this domain,
rather than be in decline as some commentators might suggest. You need
only look at the Icograda manifesto to which David refers for implications
of this, and provocative remarks about "graphic design yielding territory"
and needing to "reinvent the discipline" (p. 75). My understanding of a
discipline is that it is not something you reinvent, and it's not about
territory either.
What appears to be happening is that new configurations, or "field"
relationships, need new organisational structures. In Cincinnati, as you
suggest, it's Graphic Design, Interaction Design and Motion Design grouped
within Communication Design. (Although, the UoC website does not yet
reflect this as it lists Graphic Communication Design with three strands
relating to the above). In my undergraduate days in the early 1980s, a
similar grouping existed in a Department of Visual Communication housing
independent degree programmes in Information Graphics, Photography, and
trade qualifications for Printing. But there was no sense of a discipline
out there called Visual Communication, and nobody was transitioning into
anything. It was purely an institutional middle management tool. Each area
was confident about what was at the core rather than the boundaries.
I therefore wonder if these newer phrases (e.g. Visual Communication,
Communication Design etc.) are little more institutional organisational
tools rather than clearly defined organised bodies of knowledge.
Consequently to talk about transition, as many do, from Graphic Design to
... [add your preference here] is misleading, and possibly disingenuous.
In his later post, David Sless refers to his piece in the ICOGRADA
manifesto by stating a transition from graphic design to visual
communication is "deeply problematic." Paraphrasing Walter Benjamin, he
respectfully acknowledges the damage done to "existing civilisations" by
"new civilisations." For me, the strength of Graphic Design as an
educational model, whether defined in narrow or broad terms, as a field in
demand from prospective students, as an established field/discipline with
a body of literature, need not be part of transition into something else.
There is no territory to yield or reinvention required and it need not be
"damaged." But I think it reasonably to expect something in return and
learn from newer fields that have emerged from it, alongside it or
elsewhere. That will help it evolve as it has done through significant
socio-cultural, economic and technical change.
What I'm getting at here is that I think you're right to have
"trepidation" about "name change" because if it's perceived in this way
then we potentially throw away a century's work. David points this out as
the "second potential danger is to the cumulative body or research and
practice that is ignored as the new order ... replaces the old ...
remov[ing] the obligation to scrutinise earlier work that offers findings
and insights that could save needless reinvention..."
This is highly relevant in the UK as a third of an undergraduate's time is
spent doing some form of historical/critical/theoretical study, for which
they must write a final year dissertation. It's also relevant in practice
as in the late 1990s I can recall having to significantly undo CD-Rom
projects undertaken by technology whizzkids who had little understanding
of corporate identity and the emerging field of branding (of which I then
had expertise knowledge based on my graphic design practice).
I've just pledged $158 in support of a full-size reissue of the 1970 NYC
Transit Authority Graphics Standards Manual, by Unimark's Massimo Vignelli
and Bob Noorda. It's an initiative from a couple of graphic designers at
Pentagram in New York. See:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/thestandardsmanual/full-size-reissue-o
f-the-nycta-graphics-standards?ref=email
Taking on David's concerns about "damage", if I were a communication
designer tasked with working on the design of large transport
infrastructure (to conflate the two key interpretations of communication)
I'd want to be aware of such historical reference points. Where might this
reside if not Graphic Design?
Regards, Robert
Robert Harland
School of Arts English and Drama
Loughborough University
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|