Heard Rick give a presentation this evening about design—or some trendy words that some people like to label design Design thinking and Critical design. It’s funny though, the crowd was very tight lipped about the whole thing. I guess Melbourne designers are much like the Canadian mentality—try not to disturb the peace. I think Rick raised an interesting issue that many (graphic) designers are not ready to deal with yet. He describes that possibly some (graphic) design needs to go back to its roots lets say and discover and accept visual aesthetics as viable communication methods. He states that it is necessary for graphic designers to reclaim their “input” and definition of design thinking towards something that is whole and human-centered. It sounds like a lot of practice based research to me. What I do agree with is how graphic designers, lately on the research band wagon seem to need to classify, label, structure everything and if it’s not within a classifiable research method it demeans what we do and are trying to communicate. The element of discovery+research+visualisation might just be lost in order to gain control of our practice. At what cost though?

… theory into the process and final delivery. Dilnot states that in order for knowledge through design to become knowledge there needs to be a translation. An exegesis. Does it really? I’ve seen projects at a final examination that “speak for themselves” and demonstrate the knowledge acquired.

More later..

It’s now later. Dilnot’s statement of how we “read” research through design and there is a need of an exegesis in order for this knowledge to become knowledge could be interpreted in a different manner. Design research educator Sharron Helmer has stated once that the knowledge acquired through a research degree must be made accessible to the public in some way in order to validate the process and contribute the information in a broader context. Possibly Dilnot’s statement is more directed towards the dissemination rather than the process and equation. Acquired knowledge through the process of designing seems to need a limit, that is, the knowledge acquired should be reflected on and placed in context of the research questions and the overall objectives in order to help direct the process of research. Once the knowledge gained through a research is done, I don’t think it really matters “what” method(s) of knowledge formation was used but what the content of the information is. Basically, it’s going back to what methods are good for the process of your project. In the end, this knowledge seems to turn into knowledge about design because its being placed in the academic mould of information acquired.

I’m confusing myself. More later. I’m going to run this article dry until something clicks.

Design Schools 101
Ellen Shapiro
Print, March 2004.

This article covers an overview of some challenges that are being faced now in graphic design education. Shapiro, quite frankly states the openness of discussion of this topic with various higher educations design institutions. Her main point was that these prominent institutions seemed to be caught in a tug-of-war act of balancing constructive criticism and evolution in the curriculum and university policy. (i.e., What comes first new computers or re-evaluating the curriculum and courses.) She also brings to light the changes in the profession and where it will be in the future, relating it to technological, cultural and social/economic changes. It expresses the difficulties in condensing necessary design education including (learning software, concept and theory and professional practice) in a 3-4 year program. Depending on the school, these years are not entirely focused on design studies and may have extensive Liberal studies courses accompanied with the design curriculum. These schools, based on the former Basel system have been also criticized as not giving students enough “industry” practice in the design field.
What is the perfect balance between concept/theory and practice in design education?