PEDAGOGIA DEL DISSENY,
Pedagogic limits of modern design
Historically, design has been the reflection of the efforts made by man to integrate art and culture into industry. Thus, at the same time, the teaching of design expresses a desire for compromise between two opposing and often irreconciliable attitudes: that of the artists who, from their ivory tower, oppose any system of industrial production and its technical progress, and that of the techniques linked to industry, which, from their systematic logic, do not accept the intervention of persons who are outside industry and who are considered to be a disturbance to its smooth running.
Two languages apparently opposed to each other: one, scientific and open to experiment and therefore subject to values of truth or falsehood; the other, poetic and expressive, which, because of its high degree of ambiguity, does not seem to admit of apodeictic judgments.
This has been, and continues to be, the great challenge of pedagogy: to unite in one single language two distinct forms of expression. The first, resulting from the requirements and technical limitations of industry itself, and the other, from the need to recognize the symbolical and cultural value of industrial objects.
The incorporation of new forms of industrial production, based on the division and specialization of work, entails organizational changes which oblige industry to adopt criteria of production contrary to any type of subjective intervention. The uniformity of the mass-produced object meant the abolition of any personal initiative during the production process and, thus, the machine ended up imposing its own laws unto man.
There was no shortage of voices to denounce the perverted use of the machine. In an age when the objects of daily use were beginning to be manufactured with the help of the machine, W. Morris re-affirmed the need to recuperate the values of craftsmanship and the «personalized search for the secret beauty that is hidden in each one of the materials». In fact, however, his romanticism was incapable of solving the problem of art and culture, with regard to manual skills and mechanical production.
It was necessary to wait for Walter Crane, a disciple of Morris, to recognize that no system of art teaching could be effective unless is set out explicitly from the machine, as a reality. By confessing that modern civilization rests on the machine. Crane tries to establish a synthesis between art and industrial technology and, in this way, gives birth to a new moral sense in the teaching of design. For the first time, design goes beyond the satisfaction of the basic needs of the individual and becomes transformed into an instrument of social well-being, and quality in industrial products becomes one of the priority objectives of design. Only by working from mechanical industry —or so proclaimed the members of the Deutsche Werkbund— can one avoid the social and at the same time objectual degradation which industry itself implies.
After the Werkbund there are no more attempts to safeguard society from the fateful consequences of industrialization, nor to suppress the alienation of work, by taking up craft production and its aesthetic forms. The Werkbund contributes a new concept of economic-cultural realism, explicitly based on exploiting the advantages offered by industrial technology.
Thus there appears a new sense of industrial production and with it a new consciousness of the teaching of design based on the project as its theoretical measure. This pedagogical conception was reinforced by the rationalist thinking of the neo-constructivists and neo-objectivists with their desire to make a clean sweep of any elements that might contradict the possibilities and demands of industrial technology.
Thus, now identified with the rationalization of productivity and the standardization of products, design will once more have to confront intuitive and creative concepts, historically made explicit by Mathesius and van de Velde in their contentious work «standardization versus creativity».
Two pedagogical conceptions that are difficult to reconcile. On the one hand, that which defends neo-styling or design in a symbolic form as the expression of genuine creativity and, of course, with highly profitable economic effects; on die other, more attracted by design that is «objective and which has purely formal qualities», the conception which is enclosed within the Modern Movement and takes as its model the legendary Bauhaus as me only alternative to the power of neostyling.
This latter pedagogical direction, accepted as the starting point by most schools, entailed the rejection of intuition and subjectivity as the basic driving force of creation. Intuition was replaced by a systematic search for a reality that had been reduced to quantifiable values and was at the same time subject to the mechanical laws of combinatorial analysis.
This type of teaching, as well as being the vocational defender of A. Loos, imposed austere forms from engineering design. Its aesthetics, wholly conditioned by the industrial technology of the moment, was bereft of all type of ornament or «profane material», under the pretext that this was not organically derived from the new industrial culture and therefore could not serve as its form of expression.
This mechanistic conception, based on the division of industrial work, involved accepting the primacy of reason as being the most suitable means for planning and anticipating, but, parallel to this, it supposed the systematic rejection of all thinking and sensitivity in the process of industrial manufacture: an attitude of design which, later and at deeper levels, was to dictate the norm and ethics that would govern the still inexpert industrial culture.
Within this ideological conception design teaching finished by proscribing any value of an artistic or intuitive nature that might stray from the monotonous logic of industry or surpass the technical limits of its systems of production. In any appraisal of its premises, industry could not afford to apply methods arising from a critical reflection on its production, since working on a basis of formal intentions derived from calculation, it cannot assimilate individual forms that come from initiative and cultural mobility.
This is the unadmitted embryo of the «pedagogy of honest forms», which we have inherited from the Ulm Hochschule für Gestallung: an honesty linked, according to its first director, to the quality and the real function of objects, although always dictated by the technical demands of mass production and excluding, because of its isolated and nonsystematic treatment, the traditional problem of creativity and intuition.
Faithful to these premises, schools of design, especially those created in the sixties, made great efforts to apply scientific methodology whose strictness and depth would free the student from the «ominous» influence of personal style, particularly when this failed to respect the technical limitations of mechanized productivity.
By unconditionally accepting the concept of the project, as proposed by the Ulm HFG, design schools rejected all teaching which entailed accepting and developing the intuitive and creating qualities of the student. Their productivist zeal led design schools to finish by replacing style and individual expression by forms resulting from the demands imposed by industrial technology.
The student of design therefore ceased to be a creator and generator of novel proposals and was reduced to a simple anonymous worker, a future planner of certain products previously assigned to society.
Enric Bricall, director of Elisava, between
E. Sonsass and A. Mendini. Barcelona, 1991.
Volumetre study developed at Escola Elisava.
Professor: Andrew Collins.
In order to be able to justify their own limitations, the new methodologies of design applied new quasi-scientific cosmetics which afforded them a large dose of moral authority. Like industry design teaching chose to shun individual contributions which the technology of the moment did not allow to be incorporated into its products.
Thus, the further design method moved away from the influence of the personal initiative of the student, the more scientific and objective it was considered to be. Design problems could only be solved by the use of predefined concepts strictly applied with logical-deductive processes. So the design process was reduced to the simple schematic and restrictive practice of redundant effects.
True to a single mathematical basis and to a single idea of logic, design leaching defended the principle that all problems involved in a design process could be solved algorithmically, that is to say, by means of a logical construction which finished by setting itself up as a heuristic model, unique and infallible.¹
Obviously with a process of this type the pedagogic objectives were clearly defined and its strategy was judged to be useful to the extent that it allowed the process of design to proceed in an orderly way. But this didactic system, centred exclusively on technical-constructive information and training in project logic, only prepared the student for quantifying the efficiency of certain premises, whose value was exclusively based on the application of economic and utilitarian criteria and always to the detriment of those cultural conditioners derived from individual dynamics and social facts.
It is clear that leaching must not be restricted to the application of stereotyped knowledge and methods to produce simple replacement designers for the economic process. Design must strive to produce «natural» and cultural objects which, besides being «useful for doing something», should also possess a symbolic value to give them validity as signs of communicative interchange.
Social man, as a unity, must be the starting point of a new type of teaching which conceives human nature as a result of social cohabitation and, as such, requires design to satisfy all the needs that have arisen in his environment. To achieve this, we need to develop a methodology which allows for experiment and reflection on the existing conditions of our everyday universe; which also incorporates technical ways of motivating initiative and intellectual curiosity; and which, above all, fosters creativity and the acceptance of a certain relativism when it comes to assessing values: in short, a system of teaching which denies the existence of absolute reference values and adopts a syncretic attitude towards the differing manifestations of design thinking.
Only in this way will the process of design be able to become transformed into a strategy of the intellect and an application of the control techniques of the creative process —something like a regulator of the intuitive processes, in the sense that these lend to follow certain paths and allow results to be obtained which can be considered satisfactory.
The icsid report
It must be recognized that the Committee for Teaching of the ICSID affirmed in like manner, although rather timidly, in its first report on design leaching, which is still an effective pedagogic tool for most present day design schools.2
In this report, which arose from the healthy need to rationalize the design process and from a wish to contribute a pedagogic guide to specialized schools, the ICSID unequivocally states the need to bring some degree of harmony into such apparently contradictory questions as the rational and intuitive processes, or their evaluations, be they objective or subjective.
In the report the ICSID considered rationality to be the most suitable means of introducing, in an orderly way, the intuition and the personality of the student into the process of design. Thus, in paragraph 2, point 2.2, it recognizes that the design process, in its hypothetical phase, is influenced not only by known facts but also by the social and individual characteristics of the designer himself. «It is a question —the report concludes— of a process, at the same time both rational and intuitive [...] of a creative act, whose greater or lesser intensity varies according to the ability of the designer to draw conclusions from an analysis of the facts and to perceive new relationships between what is known and what he thinks might be of greatest service to whoever is going to use the product.»
In point 2.3 the report insists on the inescapable subjectivity which the process of assessing supposes, «since this —it argues— depends on suppositions which refer not only to the technical but also to the social and cultural qualities of the product. The former —it adds— can be evaluated objectively, while the latter depend to a considerable extent on subjective interpretations.»
However, the faithful application of the ICSID report, often enthusiastic and rarely critical, combined with an excessive confidence in logical-deductive methods and with a conviction that all the problems of design can be solved with scientific precision, reduced the original desire for synthesis on the part of the ICSID to a simple logical product and an effective tool for «making designers». Pedagogic practice, by giving priority to rationalist concepts, converted design into a rigid instrument for planning and the student found himself obliged to systematically follow a pre-established logic, which limited his field of action and distanced him from the interests of the public he was aiming to benefit.
In present day design teaching, this logical product, or «logical trap»,³ resembles a control process more than a creative process —a kind of logic which, by imposing its conventional laws onto thinking and by reducing the meaning of facts and words, gives the student an excessively restricted vision of the problem.
The student's first step is to «create» the needs which he mistakenly defines as objectives and which will later define his subsequent design process. In fact, in developing a process with observable values as a starting point, which he thus considers to be objective, the student only succeeds in establishing a discriminatory and evaluative process of what he is observing. By failing to incorporate certain intuitive and creative values into his design methodology he ends up by giving an impoverished sense of reality and eliminates any possibility of affecting it.
A captive in the cave of methodology, the student of design forgets that he is himself an integral part of reality and limits himself to quantifying and interrelating partial interpretations of the facts, something which is later questioned scientifically. And although he might receive an adequate reply to his all his questions, I believe that the real problem will not have been touched on even superficially.
In the first place, the desire to identify the most representative premises of a design situation forces the student to fix and immobilize relationships which, by their very nature, are always active. Moreover, carried along by an exhaustive analysis of certain elements, the student's thinking is caught up in a process from which he finds himself obliged to draw conclusions in order to satisfy the small set of previously defined requirements.
In short, a type of teaching which has transformed the design process into a simple academic product, opposed to the rich process of thinking and at the service of dogmatic solutions. It is a process which, in the best of cases, leads us to discover quite simply what we already knew and which is therefore no longer pedagogically useful to us in that it exhausts its predictive capacity and is incapable of spreading towards new horizons.
In accepting as a premise of design the distancing between the designer and his own proposals, we have offered society a form of living that is uniform, monotonous and alienating. We have forgotten that the real design process, besides proposing «objective» solutions to delimited and measurable problems, requires a widely receptive attitude that enables us to achieve real knowledge with regard to both objective and subjective situations.
We should so condition the student that he feels that the aim of design is not the search for foreseeable or conclusive solutions: «To reach a conclusion is to finalize, to die», as Heidegger would say. The aim is, without a shadow of doubt, the search for unforeseeable and surprising results.
What is new is unknown to us and neither theories nor principles will lead us to this unknown. This is why design teaching should not limit itself to guiding students along well trodden paths. Neither must it be content to modify what already exists by applying theory to practice. Something more is needed in order to overcome the problem and to recognize what we do not know or what we do not even know we do not know.
There is a need for design teaching with more diffuse structures, without attributes that define the aims a priori. Let it give free rein to initiative; let it stimulate creativity and value chance events. Let it make the effort to reconcile complex reality and overcome its contradictions and incompatibilities.
A pedagogic system which experiences new forms of knowledge and new forms of feeling, that is to say, which incorporates intuition and creativity, in the sense of a desire to provoke changes and to reach towards the unknown. A mixed system that blends knowledge and discursive methodology with our own experiences, prejudices, tastes and intuition.
The value of intuition as a means of knowing has not always been appreciated by the different pedagogic options. Thus, while attitudes which bear the stamp of behaviourism and have a positivist empirical orientation reject intuition as something close to irrationality, in that it depends on chance and leads to errors, other attitudes, not without reason, appreciate the great pedagogic value of intuition. We should not forget that this «radical kind of knowing», as Chomsky calls intuition,4 allows us to decide, in the last instance, between the correctness or otherwise of a particular design proposal.
Although to a different extent, the Greek philosophers considered intuition to be a basic, fundamental form of knowledge, to which the other forms of knowing were subordinated. For Plato, for example, intuitive thinking was clearly superior to the discursive kind, which he felt to be a simple aid to attaining the Former:
While Aristotle tried to establish a balance between intuitive and discursive thinking, other philosophers5 have significantly continued to emphasize the value of intuition as knowledge which surpasses knowledge based on the senses and reason. So, for Bergson, while rational knowing is only capable of skimming the external and converting what is continuous into separate fragments in order to analyse and break them down, intuitive knowing permits us to penetrate into the true nature of things and to capture its essence as a whole.
But, on the other hand, intuition by itself is not enough. For it to be intelligible, it must be accompanied by concepts and reasoning: «Thoughts without content —says Kant— are empty: intuition without concept is blind.»6
It is not a question, then, of contrasting forms of knowing often judged to be incompatible; nor is it a question of defining the validity of one to the detriment of the other. On the contrary, it is rather a question of understanding that intuition and reason must merge at their edges and aim at reciprocal interpenetration. Both derive from experience of the world and so it does not seem difficult for their activities, at a certain level of design, to meet each other again. So design teaching must value and use this «experienced intuition»7 by resorting, in its methods, both to uncontrollable inspiration and to logical reasoning.
The student must realize that he is the one who has to organize, without methodological distancing, his own design process, merge with it and accept its reasoning, intuition and experience.
Although in a less explicit form, design already counts with specific strategies which can be assimilated to our ends. In fact, techniques of brainstorming, synectics and naive or chance observation of the environment also aim to incorporate experienced intuition into a design process. However, the use of these procedures is rather limited, as they only contribute information to the first phase of the design process which, because of its complementary character, does not substantially affect the reasoning aspect.
The inclusion of experienced intuition in the process of design is much more ambitious. The aim is to recuperate a kind of design pedagogics which will resolve the conflict between creative thinking and logical analysis. The difficulty is that the imagination does not work well unless it is free from the choices of order and time imposed by the problem itself and, on the other hand, there can only be logical analysis if some relationship exists to produce a systematic, hierarchized sequence.
However, effective design teaching must incorporate these two kinds of thinking into one single process by harmonizing logic and imagination, the problem and the solution: teaching which therefore rejects the traditional schism between creation and discursive thinking as if they were two different levels of knowledge, and in which the first would supply raw materials to be transformed by thinking. The question is not one of being creative or rational but rather, as Charles Jones advises, of «following the revolutionary drives of intuition with the rationalist rules of thinking».8
Within this perspective and with the aim of engendering novel reasoning the school should introduce pedagogic strategies aimed at creating unknown conflictive situations within the student which would oblige him to undertake a critical reappraisal of his own cultural convictions and models.9
In order to survive, man is constantly impelled to interpret and give meaning to the information he receives from his changing and unrepeatable environment. To do this, he must strive to transform the chaotic data he receives into a set of messages which are useful for his existence. This continual activity finally becomes transformed into an interpretative habbit which only changes when he receives messages that do not respond to his informational expectations.
The reception or imposition of unexpected information produces inside the individual a type of confusion which can range from simple emotion to a state of deepest distress. Thus, in order to live confidently and to communicate effectively, man strives to facilitate comprehension and so reduce his distressing confusion.
This constant forced struggle to eliminate conflict has caused man to interpret the state of confusion as a negative value, against which he must take action. But, looked at from a pedagogic angle, confusion is not necessarily negative, since the effort made by a student to resolve situations of imbalance or conflict can lead him to develop processes of assimilation and adjustment which can be highly productive.
The horror of the vacuum and of contexts where information is lacking creates a slate of confusion in the student which reveals the need to impose order onto the phenomena which are presented. So the student, in his confused situation, strives to reach favourable conclusions from a basis of tangible facts which he believes he can detect within the perplexity provoked by the situation. 10
Milton H. Erickson11 showed that if a stale of confusion is provoked in an individual, by means of vague or intriguing statements, this gives rise to an unacoustomed act of reconsidering and analysing the first specific information which was received and which later, with the entry of incoherent data, became incomprehensible. Nevertheless, we must bear in mind that any contextual reinterpretation that is subject to the application of procedures and methods will only be made by the student if he set out, in the first place, from the supposition that the transmitting subject must have had some reason for announcing what seems in principle to be logical incoherence.
With all this we are trying to show that the value of attraction and action provoked by a state of confusion12 can constitute a highly effective teaching strategy for broadening and transforming the vision the student has of reality.
It is clear that, when faced by an unexpected and surprising situation, the student will try to escape from his state of confusion by striving to assimilate and interpret the information he has received, using as a basis the conceptual plans or structures he has at his disposal. To do this, the student will begin a creative process of adjustment which might possibly entail the modification of his plans and the remodelling of his approach. This change will only occur as a result of the effort made by the student to overcome the situation of imbalance or cognitive conflict he has been subjected to.13
Any design process, therefore, which aims to go beyond the simple search for concrete solutions must repeatedly question the premises of design, so as to provoke divergences which generate conflictive situations in the student. His slate of creative confusion will doubtlessly arouse disturbing attitudes opposed to the image of confidence found in the standard planned solutions with their univocal meaning.
The confusion caused by the search for solutions sharpens the attention to detail and obliges the student to hasten along unknown and surprising paths, of decisive consequence for the novel interpretation of future design situations. «It is necessary to introduce chaos and lead the student to explore and emerge —advises Charles Jones14— in order for him to regain mental balance, to create a new image of the problem, a transformation of the world that is known and which is contradictory, taking into account the many and diverse worlds into which it could be converted.»
From this point of view, the paradox, as a strategy of confusion, is transformed into a pedagogic tool capable of provoking changes in the way the student thinks and behaves. Nevertheless, it must be clearly borne in mind that the greater or lesser effort the student will make to assimilate and adjust to the new paradoxical situation will depend on the correlation between the specific activity the statical has engaged in to reach the «normal» situation and the effort which, in his opinion, is required for the re-establishment of the coherence of his reasoning.
Thus, if we introduce information which is contradictory to the logic of the discourse which the student is engaged in, he will make every effort to seek to correct and redefine his discourse, always provided that this effort is considered to be less than that he made in order to arrive at the situation of balance that existed prior to the new paradoxical situation.
On the contrary, cases might arise when the effort to adapt a discourse to the new situation is considered to be greater than that already made or, if not actually greater, is considered to be excessive, or the student feels particularly seduced by and attracted to his discourse. In these cases the student, rather than sacrifice the solution he had found, will fabricate some self-justifying explanation, deforming reality in order to adapt it to his initial discourse.
However, if the deformation of reality surpasses the bounds of acceptability, or the effort required by this acceptability is greater than the effort made to find the former solution, the student will choose to reconsider his own discourse and will introduce the corrections and redefinitions necessary to make it appropriate to the information he has received.
Faced with paradoxical and incoherent situations, the student of design, anxious to dispel his state of uncertainty, will mobilize all his imaginative ruses and recourses to confont the incoherent mass and to find some order and meaning in all that which, in principle, does not make sense.
It is necessary for the student, starting from the very foundations of critical reason, to doubt everything he believed to be true. He should be methodologically sceptical concerning his own ideas and, faced with the imperative need to resolve his creative doubt, he should feel compelled to practise exercises which lead him to abandon plans and systems of a predefined nature. However, the pedagogue must remember that this methodology of confusion will only be effective if, in accordance with the points made above, the student retains his ability to persist with reasoning and does not lose the will to re-attempt an understanding of the new reality.
If all these circumstances are present, the student will no longer adopt stereotyped procedures which would lead him to premature security in his proposals but will accede, from uncertainty and from his interest in the unknown, to all that is new. In periods of creative doubt the design process seems tainted with insecurity and the tendency towards knowledge suffers an upheaval which, in the student, provokes a healthy reappraisal of design proposals. In this way the student will avoid falling victim to subliminal self-control which would deprive him of the ability to admire what is new.
Whatever is new awakes in the designer a feeling of admiration which, according to Aristotle, is «the beginning of all knowledge», since beneath the feeling of admiration «reality appears above all as something capable of being investigated and known, as is shown in the processes of thinkings».15
As with confusion and doubt, admiration for what is new can be an existential feeling of design knowledge. He who marvels at nothing, Aristotle tells us, does not even have the possibility of asking and without questions there are no answers and, thus, no knowledge.
Admiration for something new, just because «it is like this», gives the student knowledge which surpasses the bounds of everyday possibilities and of what can be expected. As in the state of creative confusion, this process is accompanied emotionally by feelings of surprise and conviction. Through admiration, things appear to the student as objects of possible investigation which leads to an intellectual process.
New design teaching must be sure to take into account that design thought and knowledge are not mere passive reflections of reality, but derive from a living attitude of investigation and a passionate search for a new reality that is not inconsistent with admiration. This «passion of the soul» as Descartes describes admiration, engenders a sudden surprise which makes us pay more attention to the objects which have provoked it. Thus its use in the field of knowledge to allow us to learn and retain things previously unnoticed.
Contrary to a traditional pedagogic attitude, which rejects or pushes aside the feelings of doubt and admiration, we must consider these feelings as integrant elements of a design process. Like confusion and doubt, the feeling of admiration, conditioned by the tendency towards the knowledge of a reality which is revealed as an object of investigation, must form part of a pedagogic system that is aimed at provoking experiment along new paths of design.
As the student emerges from within himself, he makes use of a wider range of information than that of his own habits and he accepts facts and data which he might never have imagined. Detached from his self-censorship, the student will freely process his own intuitions, his experiences and situations, however surprising and unexpected they may be.
The deliberate introduction of these variables into the design process must be considered, from the pedagogic point of view, as an attempt to overcome the present systems of control and predetermined selection, so that feelings, knowledge and reasoning may live side by side and create unsuspected, enriching ideas which, as Max Ernst would say, «will generate, without a doubt, their own poetry».
1. See Pericot, J Temes de Disseny, n.º 2, p. 16.
2. The report is derived from documents drawn up in the following seminars on «The Training of Designers», organized by the International Council of Societies for Industrial Design. ICSID; Bruges (21-24 March, 1964) under the auspices of UNESCO; Ulm (17-19 September, 1965) with the collaboration of the Hochsehule für Gestallung; New York (7-10 September,1967) with the collaboration of the University of Syracuse; Kaufmen Foundation American Industry.
3. With these terms Jones, Charles (Essays in Design, John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.) refers to the apparently scientific use of a frustrating and repetitive type of logic.
4. Chomsky defines intuition thus in Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Mit Press, Cambridge, 1965.
5. See inter alios Descartes. Leibnitz. Spinoza, Bergson.
6. Kant, E., Kritik der Reiner Vernunft, A.51.
7. Jones, Charles, op. cit., thus describes intuition born of experience and guided by reason.
8. Jones, Charles, op, cit.
9. Look De Bono, Edward, Lateral Thinking, Pelikan Books. London, 1971.
10.The concept of sfumuto, defined by Leonardo da Vinci, already points to this natural need to give a coherent explanation to ambiguous information.
11.The Confusion Technique in Hypnosis: Grune and Statton, New York. 1967.
12.See Watzlawick, Paul, La réalité de la réaliaté, Éditions du Seuil. Paris. 1978.
13. See Cantor (1983), Hewson and Hewson (1984), Murray (1983), Zimmerman and Blorn (1983).
14. Jones, Charles, op. cit.
15. Aristotle, Met, A, 2982b.
Director de l’escola Elisava des de l’any 1968 fins a l’any 1986. Doctor en Història de l’Art i Llicenciat en Filosofia. Catedràtic de Teoria de la Imatge de la Facultat de Belles Arts de la Universitat de Barcelona y catedràtic de Comunicació Audiovisual de la Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Director de la revista Temes de Disseny. Ex-professor de Teoria de la Imatge de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Promotor de la Pedagogia del Disseny a Catalunya des de l’Escola Elisava. Membre del Consell de Redacció de Publicacions Elisava. Membre del [...]
13 LA CULTURA DEL DISSENY, PAS A PAS. 35 ANYS DE L'ESCOLA ELISAVA, 1996
13 LA CULTURA DEL DISSENY, PAS A PAS. 35 ANYS DE L'ESCOLA ELISAVA, 1996
02 DISSENY, COMUNICACIÓ, CULTURA, 1988
El disseny i les formes artesanals
Design and craftsmanship
In this paper we
intend to analyse and consider the impact of present technologies on the sphere
of industrial design. especial in what refers to the overcoming of the
traditional dichotom between «craftsman process and industrial pracess of
With the advent of
new technologies, industry is ready to appropiate many values which it had been
unable to adapt to its system before. and which it had been forced to reject.
from feeling of impotence. in the name of a particular kind of functionalism
that was presented as a universal value.
Among these changes one may mention the disappearance of the old problem of ornamentation applied to industrial object without betrayrng, therefore, the inherent qualities of the mass produced objects. Another aspect that is definitely overcome by these changes is the rigidness that results from a preestablishe industrial design of unique objects, to which the individual has to adjust. The new forms of computenzed production have enable the creation of flexible objects in continual construction, in the search of individual participation and compromise.[...]
01 DISSENY, COMUNICACIÓ, CULTURA, 1986
Per una anàlisi pragmàtica de la imatge
23 INNOVACIÓ I DISSENY, 2006
El dissenyador com a formalitzador i comunicador de valors
La constant exigència de nous productes per part del consumidor fa que la innovació esdevingui el motor principal dels canvis de quota de mercat entre les empreses competidores. Amb aquest objectiu, el procés d’innovació i disseny ocupa un espai central dins l’empresa per tal d’interrelacionar i coordinar tots els seus agents productius.
El dissenyador, coneixedor dels valors socials i culturals, però també de les possibilitats tècniques de l’empresa, incideix en cadascuna de les fases del procés d’innovació i, a través del producte, es responsabilitza de la formalització i comunicació dels valors culturals que activen el procés d’innovació.
19 REPTES ACTUALS DEL DISSENY. DISSENY I LLENGUATGE VISUAL, 2002
El disseny i les seves responsabilitats per al futur
Seria ingenu voler definir com serà el disseny en el futur, encara que només sigui d'aqui a unes dècades. L'única cosa que podem fer és analitzar les idees generals sobre les quals es fonamenta la història del disseny, projectar-hi els grans esdeveniments que estan marcant el comportament social i deduir-ne els efectes en el camp dels projectes del disseny. Per aquesta exposició hem triat com a constant el tradicional binomi simbòlic-unitari que implica una societat jeràrquicament dividida en classes. Evidentment, en el transcurs de la història del disseny l'equilibri entre aquests valors ha anat variant en funció dels corrents culturals i ideològics que predominaren socialment en cada època.
Actualment, el fenomen de la globalització ha accentuat aquesta divisió. D'altra banda, els greus conflictes polítics i militars que la humanitat està vivint pronostiquen grans canvis econòmics i socials que, sens dubte, obliguen a una redefinició de la pràctica del disseny.
06 PEDAGOGIA DEL DISSENY, 1991
L’ensenyament del disseny: el disseny de l’ensenyament
06 PEDAGOGIA DEL DISSENY, 1991
JOY H. DOHR, MARGARET B. PORTILLO
Marc de disseny associatiu per a l’educació
14 DISSENY, COMUNICACIÓ, CULTURA, 1997
Transitar pels mons posibles
13 LA CULTURA DEL DISSENY, PAS A PAS. 35 ANYS DE L'ESCOLA ELISAVA, 1996
Una permanent experiència pedagògica