JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  September 2014

PHD-DESIGN September 2014

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: background vs design

From:

Gunnar Swanson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 16 Sep 2014 18:34:06 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (98 lines)

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
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager