If we were to talk about « de »-colonization of design as a form of response to contempt (somehow, it drifted there…), I would quote Amilcar Cabral :
"A people who free themselves from foreign domination will be free culturally only if, without complexes and without underestimating the importance of positive accretions from the oppressor and other cultures, they return to the upward paths of their own culture, which is nourished by the living reality of its environment, and which negates both harmful influences and any kind of subjection to foreign cultures. - (See more at: http://www.blackpast.org/1970-amilcar-cabral-national-liberation-and-culture#sthash.FTySRRhL.dpuf <http://www.blackpast.org/1970-amilcar-cabral-national-liberation-and-culture#sthash.FTySRRhL.dpuf>, and don’t despise the text because of its references to Marxism here and there. I find it excellent).
Eduardo, even though I don’t speak portuguese, I love the sound of this :
"Um povo que se liberta do domínio estrangeiro não será culturalmente livre a não ser que, sem complexos e sem subestimar a importância dos contributos positivos da cultura do opressor e de outras culturas, retome os caminhos ascendentes da sua própria cultura, que se alimenta da realidade viva do meio e negue tanto as influências nocivas como qualquer espécie de subordinação a culturas estrangeiras. »
I am unsure whether is the boundary between « positive accretions » and the « upward path ». Of course, I stand clearly on the « dominant » side (I wouldn’t say « oppressor »), simply because design as we all seem to understand it on this list (and probably as it is taught by most) is the historical product of the european culture : its value frame, conceptual models, methods etc. are simply rooted here.
So I would say « design » is european.
Which doesn’t imply that other cultures have neither been able to produce artifacts or images, nor to have complex and lively value systems attached, transmission and traditions, and whatever you want to attach to it.
I have voiced every now and then the big miss that needs to be tackled if we wanted to embrace design as a plural word. I don’t believe that it can be filled by some additions to any academical curricula (although this would a slight improvement). It would require keeping alive a body of knowledge-and-practice by first respecting the remains of the transmission system, and letting the very people concerned explore the path(s) to their own culture. It is not alternate design(s) that must fit into the curriculum, it is the curriculum that must be adapted to other ways of doing… if it makes any sense !
Why does it seem to be more complicated in design than it is in literature, music, and (somehow) in architecture or possibly cinema ? Is it because (our)design is too tied to an economical model that we are unable to see connections beyond nostalgia and folklore ? Is it because we fail too see latent values in the material world (e.g. : I have seldom found traces about æsthetical constructs of most artifacts in ethnographical studies). There are clearly, in most cultures, classes of objects and images/signs, and the distinction is often clear. Some will have a specific status, and will have a whole system (production, circulation, visibility etc.) attached to them — well, that’s too long a digression…
Or are there other reasons ?
Jean
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|