06
PEDAGOGIA DEL DISSENY,
1991
Pedagogic limits of modern designHistorically, 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.
Ideological coverage
 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.
Mixed pedagogy
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.
Experienced 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
Creative confusion
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.
|
Sobre l'autor
JORDI PERICOT
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 [...]
Relacionat 13 LA CULTURA DEL DISSENY, PAS A PAS. 35 ANYS DE L'ESCOLA ELISAVA, 1996 JORDI PERICOT Introducció 13 LA CULTURA DEL DISSENY, PAS A PAS. 35 ANYS DE L'ESCOLA ELISAVA, 1996 JORDI PERICOT Introducció 02 DISSENY, COMUNICACIÓ, CULTURA, 1988 JORDI PERICOT 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
production» 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 JORDI PERICOT Per una anàlisi pragmàtica de la imatge 23 INNOVACIÓ I DISSENY, 2006 JORDI PERICOT 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 JORDI PERICOT 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 SARAH DINHAM 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 JORDI PERICOT Transitar pels mons posibles 13 LA CULTURA DEL DISSENY, PAS A PAS. 35 ANYS DE L'ESCOLA ELISAVA, 1996 JORDI PERICOT Una permanent experiència pedagògica |