Dear Colleagues,
Just a few thoughts.
This is an interesting thread, considering not only the role of history in various design fields, but also the requirements of various accreditation agencies to have 10% or more of history courses in the design curriculum.
I can talk mostly about architecture and interiors. It is pretty common in these areas to have several courses on design history. Some faculty require students to use historical examples (Egyptian furniture) to design furniture for today's customer.
I have a different take on design history (history of architecture) and the reasons to study it.
In the old times, master builders have studies historical examples (precedents) and have copied them as close as possible. The history of architectural design is a history of copying the great examples of the great old times, starting with the first wooden Ancient Greek temple and replicating its components till the advent of Modern Architecture.
Modern Architecture makes the most radical attempt (not the first one, but the most radical) to engage in innovation by tearing the umbilical cord with the past. It is a revolt against history although modernist architects dutifully studies history and tried to extract the abstract principles that were imbedded in previous works. The difference is that the modernist architects didn't replicated ornaments and decoration, but focused on compositional methods, proportions, and effects developed by the masters of the trade.
For me, the study of history of Modern Architecture is the study of contemporary architecture because Neomodernism is one of the major ongoing developments in architectural world. The study of Modern Architecture evidently is multifunctional in comparison to the study of Baroque. That is way when talking about history of architecture, I want to talk more about architecture before WW1. Of course, it is legitimate to historicize architecture after WW1, but at the same time, this period offers design precedents that are unbelievably contemporary. Very often, for the inexperienced general public, it is impossible to make a difference between certain modernist examples of the 1920s, designs from the 1960s, and current 21st Century Neomodernist designs.
My strong belief is that history (excluding Modern Architecture and Deconstruction) should not be taught in order to replicate it (excluding the very fine line in the Postmodernist designs based on citation and quotation) but should be taught in order to develop a deeper understanding of design thinking. The effect would not be immediate and tangible. On the contrary, we should not expect that after studying history of design, architects will produce much better designs. Or, they would immediately learn new design methods. Rather, after studying history, architects will develop a background that will allow them to understand better the other designer, the master, and to develop a design thinking in general, in the abstract way, not about the ornament and the detail.
My strong belief is that studying history of architecture should be developed like multicultural studies. Different architectural styles and periods should be treated as different cultures, different systems of values and norms, different ways of thinking, different strategies and tactics, compositional principles and techniques, etc. Standard multicultural studies are very important for undergraduate students to develop respect and appreciation for different cultures and people. However, design students not always carry this knowledge in the design studio and do not apply it to see the history of architecture as a multicultural process; various styles as cultures, as different ways of thinking, etc.
I don't see much value in any attempt to use historic precedents directly (excluding Modernism and Deconstruction). But I see a lot of value in developing a broad humanitarian background that is anchored in architectural styles' multiculturalism. When I approach the history of European architecture in this way, I see an unbelievable wealth of examples how social context, professional methods, and design practices interact to produce very different designs. I also see how different historic cultures affect form and form-making practices.
Most historians look at history as a sequence of dates, aesthetic inventions, innovative masters and followers, geographic and historical dissemination of ideas, borrowing, influencing, and so on. I would rather focus on the ways of thinking underlying design decision making during different design periods.
In this regard, in some way, design studies are intimately intertwined with history in the sense that we need a theoretical apparatus to examine history. On the other side, history brings about better understanding of design and design thinking. History allows us to track design thinking, the innovations, changes, and the traditions in a long period of time and grasp particular regularities in the decision-making process of designers.
When historical knowledge is internalized by architects, it helps them develop their own tacit understanding of design, design approaches and methods, and techniques for innovation. This cannot be explicated by a practicing designer, but helps understand current developments, helps to evaluate and assimilate the newest, vanguard developments, and to adopt only the best of them. (What is the best is a different question.)
In this thread we have forgotten to talk about criticism. It is not only history and theory of design that are important. (I interpret here design studies in a narrow sense, like design theory.) Evaluatory thinking is an essential part of studying history, navigating though the sea of examples/precedents, and building upon this knowledge. Criticism is strongly anchored or based on theory and at the same time it is theory in action, practicing theory in specific situations. It is also a way to historicize a particular object of criticism. Once a design/project is subjected to criticism, it is historicized. The actualization of this historization happens through dissemination of the critique and by imbed it in the historical literature.
There are many ramifications of these ideas and there are many other ideas that deserve discussion in the context of the present thread. This can become a long talk, but I will stop here.
Best wishes,
Lubomir
Lubomir Popov, PhD, FDRS, IDEC, CSP
Professor, Interior Design Program, Bowling Green State University
American Culture Studies affiliated faculty
[log in to unmask]
419.372.7935
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
