Hello everyone,
We often mention 800 (or so) design fields/disciplines/specialties. Imagine the differences and the diversity. What is applicable to and makes sense in one field, might be completely out of question in another field. To make things worse, professionals from most fields call themselves designers. When they hear the words "design" and "designer" they react as if the talk is about their field and as if their field is the only design field. I am not taking sides here, just sharing my observations.
The common ground of all these fields of design and design research should be searched for or constructed at philosophical level. We can talk about communalities there. Otherwise, the fields are very different. In some cases they are really different; in other cases the differences are superficial and fueled by professional politics.
It is also interesting to note whether we discuss a journal in on mechanical engineering design or graphic design. There is a huge difference between such fields. Mechanical designers may not share the preoccupations of graphic designers. They subject matter and professional values are very different.
Best wishes,
Lubomir
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Fiona Candy
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2014 3:05 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Most fields of Design was The (lack of?) design quality of academic paper formatting
Hi Terry
thanks for your message.
You are correct- I was not claiming that fashion and textile designers are solely responsible for one of the largest industries in the world- I was aiming to challenge what I often see as a limited, yet seemingly proprietal view of what design 'is'. Fashion and textiles is a huge industry that has long been global in its scale of operation. I have contributed to the education of well over 2000 fashion/textiles designers at UG and PG levels - so I know that there are many out there, investing their time and particular sensibilities in the evolution of design practice. You have sidestepped my question about which/who/where are the "most fields of design". I thought that the boundary you defined was not an inclusive one.
I take your point about the range of design expertise that keeps e.g, the apparel industry going - and it raises the interesting question of at what point e.g. an 'engineer' becomes a textile designer due to their constant engagement with the materials and issues of that particular industry/market/domain of practice and research?
I'm not convinced about the potential to make meaningful links between a functional, storage item like an Ikea bookshelf - and items of textiles or clothing, but I won't yet rule it out. In fashion and textiles, the permutations of fibre, construction, cloth, treatments, colour, the communicative content of decorative effects, patterns; garment cut and styling etc are huge and exponential in relation to both design and production. There's a requirement for a combination of a flexible and also exacting design approach that responds to and reflects the qualities and attributes of the materials involved. I wonder if that's something interesting for the list to think about - how and why differences between people, their styles of perception, intelligence, personalities are drawn to (or created by?) the different fields of design practice and research. Is there a possibility that designers are over impressed by the objects they design, at the expense of appreciating the differences between people, when defining their practice? I sometimes visualise my own mind and thought process like a woven thing: strands of fibres stretching across from one idea to another, back and forth, warp and weft- interwoven. Or as a loop through a loop, knitted and stretchy. I love those qualities. Of course I can see how my approach could likely be problematic or challenging for designers whose minds work in other ways that are singular, linear or more sleek ( and vice versa for me :-)).
The way I see it is that perception is not a generic experience, any more than design practice is, although it seems likely that there are are some connecting threads. By our nature, we each have particular abilities that come to the fore as we develop our methods through practice. Would it be great, if we could find a way to accept design as a realm of activity that actively embraces the entire spectrum of human intelligence? That consciously avoids definition, to be the non-discipline that joins up all the other bounded disciplines, and whose ethos accommodates and celebrates the differences between people, their minds and sensibilities, rather than constantly upholding the need for definition and academic ownership, or by creating false boundaries and professional cachet around the objects we design.
And yes- I am pointing this out to myself this too - :-)
Fiona
Fiona Candy
[log in to unmask]
www.a-brand.co.uk
www.vimeo.com/fionacandy
On 13 Sep 2014, at 17:51, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Fiona,
> Thanks for your message.
>
> I feel its a bit illusory to claim that fashion designers are
> responsible for a US1.7 trillion global apparel and textile market.
> Most of the necessary design for this to happen is done by designers
> who have nothing to do with fashion or textile design.
>
> I wrote a post on much the same issue on this list 12 years ago,
> exploring the contribution of different design fields:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind01&L=PHD-DESIGN&P=R5
> 5451&1
> =PHD-DESIGN&9=A&I=-3&J=on&d=No+Match%3BMatch%3BMatches&z=4
> In that case it was about an IKEA bookshelf but the same reasoning
> would likely apply to fashion and textile design. I welcome your thoughts.
>
> On your comment about 'academic' version of design vs design practice,
> I agree. Its better to have as a reference practical real world
> design practice as the basis for definitions of design anytime.
>
> Best wishes,
> Terry
>
> ---
> Dr Terence Love
> Love Services Pty Ltd
> PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks
> Western Australia 6030
> Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
> Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629
> [log in to unmask]
> --
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Fiona Candy
> Sent: Sunday, 14 September 2014 12:31 AM
> To: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
> related research in Design
> Subject: Re: Most fields of Design was The (lack of?) design quality
> of academic paper formatting
>
> Hello Terry and List members
>
> terry - I am going to have to take you up on your issue of "most
> fields of design" where "visual appearance is not particularly
> central". Please can you identify which are these fields that you
> suggest are in some kind of majority position? I am totally bemused by
> this aspect of your reply to Joćo, which related to design quality of academic papers.
>
> I am a fashion and textiles designer. Do I really need to explain to
> you that the global apparel and textile market is one of the largest
> in the world? It was valued at US$1.7 trillion in 2012 and employs
> approximately 75 million people. Source:
> http://www.fashionunited.com/global-fashion-industry-statistics-intern
> ationa l-apparel (accessed 13.09.14) What field are you referring to
> as being "most" design?
>
> Visual appearance is an important aspect of fashion and textile
> design, just as any other- because like anything that is designed and
> made, how something appears is an important aspect of what it is and
> can never be considered as not particularly central. If it appears
> poor or badly designed (in Joćo's
> comment): then thats what it is. And in the case of fashion and
> textiles/apparel design also touch, temperature, performance, cut,
> sizing, fit for purpose, wash care, garment construction, wardrobe
> functionality, trend relevance etc (too many characteristics to
> mention here) are also core aspects of a designers thinking that
> implicitly and explicitly contribute to visual appearance. How can it ever not be central?
>
> I also wanted to respond to you in an earlier thread about 'design thinking'
> but did not have the time or focus, when you wrote from a historical
> perspective that 'design' or 'design thinking' seemingly came into
> existence in the 1950's/60's. It seems superficial and simplistic to 'parachute'
> design into the world, only as recently as the middle of last century.
> The contemporary practice of a clothing and textiles designer involves
> a direct lineage and heritage from what must be one of the most
> ancient fields of technology and making, and yet simultaneously
> utilises leading edge technologies for design, communication and manufacture.
>
> As ever- I am bemused and often concerned by the narrowness of what
> continues to be defined as 'design' (or 'design thinking'?) - by the
> dominant discussants on this list. I remember that Martin Salisbury
> made a great comparison recently about what he sees as a serious,
> ongoing problem of confusing design for e.g. illustrated children's
> books or a wedding dress - with design for a sewage system.
> Considering the qualities of presentation of an academic paper as not
> being central to the interpretation of its meaning, displays a similar
> naiveté about the skills and insights of graphic design.
>
> It is such a pity that this limited, academic version of design has
> become so insular and inward looking, as there is so much to learn
> from ancient fields and the depth, breadth and richness of design
> practice
>
> Fiona
>
>
> Fiona Candy
> [log in to unmask]
> www.a-brand.co.uk
> www.vimeo.com/fionacandy
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|