Christopher Frayling \u2013 Design at the Royal College of Art – Head, Hand, Heart,<\/p>\n
From \u201cDesign of the times : One hundred years at the RCA\u201d<\/p>\n
Normative tradition 1837 \u2013 1900, A matter of the head<\/strong><\/p>\n Beginning of design<\/em><\/p>\n It was to form the basis of much of the \u201cdesign methods\u201d.\u00a0Design is a language, you learn it by heart.\u00a0Draw basic geometrical shapes.\u00a0Copy architectural details from books.\u00a0Copy objects in glass cases, famous sculptures, ceramics,…<\/p>\n Copying things that stayed still.\u00a0Drawing things from life or things that move expressly forbidden because this activity might encourage the students to become artists;<\/p>\n Striking points : <\/em><\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0A theorisation of manufacture and design\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0A think tank for industry and government\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0Role of art and design schools was to theorise the language of manufacture and then, if time, to conjugate it\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n Basic assumptions were :<\/em><\/p>\n 1 – That the education system was reactive – reactive to perceive needs within the industrial system.<\/p>\n 2 – That design was something you did to things – things which were provided by the great Victorian machine;<\/p>\n 3 – That aesthetics could be separated from manufacture;<\/p>\n 4 – That the role of design schools was to do the thinking.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Actors : <\/em><\/p>\n Christopher Dresser (first industrial designer),\u00a0Owen Jones (grammar and ornament),\u00a0T.H Huxley botany and its relationship to the evolution of design<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Critical tradition 1900 – 1950, a matter of hand<\/strong><\/p>\n Consequences of the normative tradition and evolution :<\/em><\/p>\n Reaction to the normative (South Kensington) system : too many research points, not enough action.\u00a0Re-direct the system from a training of the head towards a training of the hand.\u00a0To understand design you also have to understand how it was produced.\u00a0Improving the quality of environment not by working within the general shoddiness (mauvaise qualit\u00e9)<\/em><\/span> of mass-production industry but by producing obviously, tangibly, high quality on-off pieces with attention to details and great care. \u00a0Basic courses for first year students and then choice among four specialised studios\/workshops.\u00a0Students spend three years thinking about tradition and mastering a craft, and then maybe would find their own voice<\/p>\n Striking points<\/em><\/p>\n <\/em>\u00ab\u00a0It was time to end the sham science of design\u201d ( simulacre de science)\u00a0\u00bb<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0The delayed influence of the British Arts and Crafts movement\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0New emphasis on studio and workshops practice\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0An implied judgement of the world of industrial design and industrial organisation\u201d<\/p>\n Originality and self expression still absent<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Basic assumptions were<\/em><\/p>\n 1 – That the education system was still reactive – but reactive in a very different way: reactive to and disengaged from, a world where – to quote John Ruskin again – \u201cShoddy is king\u201d (effiloch\u00e9, de mauvaise qualit\u00e9)<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n 2 -That doing was designing – less a question of grammar than a question of usage<\/p>\n 3 – That aesthetics were a challenge to the world of manufacturers<\/p>\n 4 – That the role of the design schools was to provide a practical alternative, a criticism embodied in artefacts.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Actors<\/em><\/p>\n W.R. Lethaby,\u00a0Walter Crane,\u00a0Beresford Pete,\u00a0Edward Johnston<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Expressive tradition 1950 – 1996 \/ a matter of heart<\/strong><\/p>\n Consequences of the critical tradition and evolution<\/em><\/p>\n T<\/em>he radicalism of the early art and craft movement was to make way for a system as uniform and rigid as the one it was replacing.\u00a0Making and doing within the craft tradition was not giving students enough opportunities to express their own ideas and concepts.\u00a0The \u201ccritical\u201d tradition could never hope to touch the industrial issues such as quality and quantity.\u00a0Fine art viewed as nourishing the designer\u2019s work.\u00a0New emphasis on the importance of education balancing training (the history of art,…).\u00a0Promotion of professionalism, direct connection with industry.<\/p>\n Design specialism: graphic design, industrial design, communication design and fashion design.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Striking points:<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cDesigners should mix more with artists\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cArt and design education should become a the personal exploration of a territory\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cDesign had become increasingly concerned with imagery, with the way things look, with the presentation of products within a culture and a market.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe heart in two senses: one in the sense of personal creativity; and two, in the sense of being in touch with today\u2019s cultural and visual world\u201d<\/p>\n Design Opportunities oriented: \u201clets be philosophical about this, don\u2019t give it a second thought\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Basic assumptions were:<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n 1 – That the education system should aim to be proactive – nurturing the generation of next season or perhaps tomorrow.<\/p>\n 2 – That the design was something you did in a social and cultural world – a world of images – rather than just to things.<\/p>\n 3 – That if industrialists didn\u2019t take advantage of the products of the green house, then so much the worse for them.<\/p>\n 4 – That the role of design schools was to provide an environment within which talents could flourish.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Actors<\/em><\/p>\n Robin Darwin as principal in 1948,\u00a0Adoption of the new corporate symbol of the Phoenix replacing the dodo. Profession of consultant designer and the consumer boom.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 1996 proposed agenda<\/strong><\/p>\n New conditions: From divergence to convergence<\/em><\/p>\n The three eras, marked by modernism, were divergent:<\/p>\n – Victorians time: thinking versus doing<\/p>\n – Arts and Crafts period: doing versus thinking<\/p>\n – 1960s: specialisation, modernism and diversification<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Design has become a more convergent activity.<\/em><\/p>\n Between the present and the past:<\/p>\n history reworked to \tprovide a culture of quotations<\/p>\n<\/li>\n post modernism as a \tpart of history itself<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Between fine art and design:<\/p>\n industrial design and \tsculpture edge closer together<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Between technology and design:<\/p>\n engineers and designers \tbegin to work together inside and outside education<\/p>\n<\/li>\n technology brings \tindustry into the studios and transforms design thinking<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Between industrial design and graphics or packaging:<\/p>\n in the post-black box \tera (computers ?)<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Between the crafts and design:<\/p>\n at the level of batch \tproduction<\/p>\n<\/li>\n architectural detailing<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n <\/p>\n Response of design schools to these conditions : bringing the three traditions together<\/em><\/p>\n The tradition of the head:<\/p>\n – a more thoughtful attitude towards design (ecology, social concern and so on)<\/p>\n – a more systematic approach driven by the systems of the new technology<\/p>\n – research in the sense of \u201da systematic enquiry whose goal is communicable knowledge\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The tradition of the hand:<\/p>\n – the modern crafts with artists-craftspeople, designer-craftspeople, designer-makers, applied artists…<\/p>\n – the possibility of small scale batch production<\/p>\n – new technologies enabled customization<\/p>\n – the making of prototypes<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The tradition of the heart:<\/p>\n – \u201chaving one\u2019s finger on the pulse of what is going on in the wider visual culture<\/p>\n – the mega visual explosion<\/p>\n – what magazines call style<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Research<\/strong><\/p>\n From 1837 to 1937 the government school of design then the RCA didn\u2019t pretend to be in the vanguard but were underpinned by very sophisticated philosophy and design research.<\/p>\n Since then the RCA has striven to be in the vanguard, yet it has not always developed the philosophies to match.<\/p>\n Maybe the current push to research will result in some answer to this question.<\/p>\n Maybe the present day convergence will result in a new paradigm, a paradigm for the whole person, as J. Ruskin puts it, including the head, the hand and the art.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Christopher Frayling \u2013 Design at the Royal College of Art – Head, Hand, Heart, From \u201cDesign of the times : One hundred years at the RCA\u201d Normative tradition 1837 \u2013 1900, A matter of the head Beginning of design It … Continuer la lecture \n
\n
\n
\n
\n