Terry,
First, I want to reiterate Carlos Pires' statement:
On Sep 16, 2014, at 6:02 AM, Carlos Pires <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> In discussing this particular topic, I think we must ditch, once and for all, the term "Art and Design". The mere act of using this expression obliterates centuries of human history. It's bad for Art. It's bad for Design.
I would add that it's bad for these discussions.
On Sep 16, 2014, at 2:15 AM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> What I was trying to say was that most design fields (in the bigger Design
> discipline) have seemed to have found it useful to be clear about and keep
> separate on one hand 'background information and data' (type a) and on the
> other hand 'the knowledge and skills about how to design' (type b).
Okay but I would also strongly suggest that your harping on notions of "most" and "bigger" design fields is not productive in the least. There are logical problems in your assertion and--whether this is intended or not--it seems to be intended as a move to diminish fields that you seem to disapprove of or consider usurpers of attention. I am not saying that this is your intent but it is the way that many of us read this. I strongly suggest that--if you do, indeed, want productive communication over these issues--you stop doing things that seem designed to antagonize others on the listserv.
You have found yourself insulted here. Some of it was a reasonable consideration of expertise but not all. It looks to me that people felt that they were responding in kind. I don't think apologies or mea culpas are in order and I don't believe that a discussion of blame would be productive but let's all back off and talk about issues.
> This kind of difference occurs in many ways in other fields. For example in
> the difference between a 'maker's activities' and the 'changes to the
> material', or the difference between 'information' and the 'act of
> thinking', or the difference between the 'written play' and the 'acting'.
> In Engineering fields, it is the difference between 'engineering
> data/theory/analyses' (often called 'Engineering') and 'engineering design
> practices and theories about design' (usually called 'engineering design').
I find myself lost once more. Is design akin to playwriting or to acting? Again, you tell me that design is the design stuff and non-design is the other stuff. If I don't know what you think "design" means in this instance, you have done little to advance my understanding.
> the above kind of separation wasn't yet well developed in
> the theory perspective of many Art and Design fields.
You are, perhaps, correct but you haven't done anything that might move that development forward.
> The above difference occurs in say Graphic Design, in the difference
> between 'color theory' (type a) and 'the use of color theory by a human
> while designing' (type b), or in typography the difference between
> 'information about leading, font metrics, kerning and typefaces' (type a)
> and 'design activity involved in setting text so that when it is printed it
> feels like it has a clear information hierarchy and the page has even
> greyness in the body blocks' (type b).
I don't know how "color theory" gets taught in various graphic design programs. The "wheel" made up of two triangles (red blue yellow and purple green orange) is, I am afraid, introduced to ECU students in the common art foundations that all BFA students take at ECU. I am hoping to change that. (I'm trying to get time to get a talk I did to students about the problems of this edited and up online; I'll let you know when it's available.) Needless to say, I disapprove of this approach. Harping on what I call the Israeli Gay Pride flag has a couple of problems as color theory. One is that it's not a theory and the other is that it's not very useful (and seems to assert a lot of things that are just plain not true.) The way I approach considering color is less clearly separate from what you see as "type b" stuff.
Likewise, I don't know what there is to say about leading that doesn't feed directly into issues of the arrangement of text and its acceptance by readers.
So there may be value in sifting the types a and b for conceptual reasons. There may be value in avoiding letting educational efforts become overwhelmed with "type a" to the detriment of "type b" but I don't know how the flower of "b" can grow without being planted in the dirt of "b." (Assuming, of course, that I understand your groupings in the least.)
> It is what underpins, say, the distinction between the field of 'Internet
> Studies' and the study of the design practices of 'Web programming'. Many
> other academic and practical disciplines have alternative field names that
> clearly distinguish between ' theories, information, data and knowledge
> about things' and the 'skills of professional practice using that
> knowledge'.
Did you just reverse the order of the list from a and b to b and a? Since I am already confused by what you are saying, you may want to be clear about your comparisons. It is obvious to you which is which but your lists often get murky to me.
> An example, of such a possibility of improved future design practices in
> graphic design would be clarity in graphic design processes about which
> aspects of design activity are best kept human and which are best to
> computerise and automate in any particular kind of graphic design practice -
> and, how that will change in the near, middle and distant future with
> changes in technology of graphic representation (e.g. the end of paper
> documents and screens and everything as 3D dynamic holograms).
Somehow, I am not surprised that this is an underlying motive but I don't buy what seem to be the possible embedded assumption(s.) Do you think that non-design/design-related stuff is more amenable to automation or is design stuff? My assumption would have been that other categories might be more useful for looking at these issues.
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|