The terms “design” and “graphic design” exist as reference points for ways of working, or practicing within the field of design. At any point in time, careers are based on “understood” notions of design, firms are created, and educational pedagogy is crafted, all centered on traditions of disciplinarity and the existence of a discreet field of study that we know as design.
What is (and should be) the nature of disciplinarity in a professional environment characterized by the evolution of design practice away from a conventionally narrow range of focus (i.e., form) into the broader application of design methods to such areas as strategy, human systems, and business models? Given such a shifting professional landscape, what of the nature of the discipline, and what are the implications for design education and practice?
The emergence of competing ideas of disciplinarity (cross-, multi-, inter-, and trans-, among others) raises questions about not only design practice, but the education of designers. Design programs are rethinking approaches and new models are being developed in response to more fluid and emergent forms of practice.
Given the above, how do various ideas of disciplinarity apply to the education of designers and the future practice of design? What opportunities exist for the redefinition of the field, and what models in practice or design education are currently developing?
Historically, many graphic design educators (and practitioners) have been isolated from the very active discussion (and research) about the broader term "design." That discussion, beginning in the 1960s, has been led by industrial desginers, architects, engineers and theorists from disciplines as varied as economics, sociology, or software engineering. All have sought common ground in what is now being reconized as a distinct discipline; a way of thinking, with some commmonality of procedures (generation, analysis, synthesis, etc.) across a wide range of human activities.
However, descriptions of procedures (design processes) do not give us a reason for being. Instead, the importance of design can be better understood by examining what it is for: making conscious choices in situations that are indeterminate; that have fluctuating boundaries and mulitple (literally endless) possibilities. Each possibility, at every level of a design, is a choice which changes the nature of the outcome.
While some see graphic design as expressive and personal, and others stake a claim in problem solving and purposefulness, neither of these positions (or any compromise in between) adequately explains the relentless
fecundity of human visual design and communication. Its power borrows from the broader power of design, blending the human need to make those choices with the natural systems and environments (of which we are a part) in which those choices exist.
Posted by: Geoffry Fried | March 06, 2007 at 08:34 PM