I am a long term lurker on the list, often amused and/or annoyed by the recurring repetition of particular arguments about which vision and/or definition and/or demarcation of "design" is definitive and/or canonical - typically just a thinly veiled cover for self-aggrandizing. I rarely feel the need to jump into a conversation that my lack of heavy weight tenure makes me unqualified to enter on an equal footing, but just a quick note here.....
The subheading of the article in the NY Times is "The sale of Dries Van Noten to Puig raises some pretty big questions about the current fashion system and whether bigger is always better." Personally I didn't find it that surprising that in the context of this article the designers in question were fashion designers.
Can I make a suggestion please? That when looking to promote our programs or update the list on our latest impressive activities, it might be nice just to do so openly and directly rather than attach it to a straw man argument. I'm not sure writers have the same existential angst about what writing is and whether it should be renamed because someone took a photograph of a haiku poet, and labelled it "writer in practice" thereby not representing those who make a living writing technical manuals (and to be honest if they do then that is pretty depressing also). Maybe we would be better off celebrating the diversity of practice, and taking the things we find useful from wherever we find them, and continue making our own arguments for value wherever we can (however frustrating it might be not to have that value immediately recognised).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|