“…thus in order to be truly ʻradicalʼ one must be open to the possibility that one’s own core assumptions are misconceived.” —Christopher Hitchens, Letter to A Young Contrarian, 2001

• We see the schism between object-centered (“orthodox”) graphic design and new + emerging media-centered graphic design as so substantial that it demands a distinct branch of GD pedagogy and fundamentals.
• We propose a new branch of GD education that shares overlapping bodies of knowledge and inquiry with orthodox GD pedagogy, but whose values, priorities, form, inquiry, tools, outcomes and platforms for delivery diverge at a fundamental level. Now is the time for GD education to mutate from a pedagogical orthodoxy to a heterodoxy.
• This new branch of the GD pedagogical heterodoxy must be native to and derived from our incomplete, evolving understanding of technologies, structures and values of new + emerging technologies. It must explore their current applications and future potential vis a vis our fragmented comprehension of the current cultural moment (aka THE NOW).
• This new branch of GD pedagogy is distinct from the pedagogy and skill set of object-centric forms of graphic design. It must prioritize its own skills, values, inquiry, and methods at the expense of orthodox GD fundamentals that are not native or central to its values and priorities (such as print-based typesetting, logo design, analog color theory and composition, etc.).

“When pressed for just what stuff evoked this [Frivolous Now], he said of course he meant the ‘trendy mass-popular-media’ reference. And here, at just this point, transgenerational discourse broke down.” —David Foster Wallace, E Unibus Pluram: Television and U.S. Fiction, 1997

Orthodoxy or heterodoxy in graphic design education? Please present/demonstrate your point of view using the following (or similar) academic artifacts:

• Project/charette title + description
• Course title + description
• Syllabus
• Curricular presentation/proposal
• FREE EDITORS: Post your responses or links to this page: Provocation 1 Responses.

“The real future will be what we don’t expect, and what we can’t expect. Something that’s beyond the limits of our current understanding…something beyond our imagining and even our desiring.” —Simon Reynolds

• We are done talking about integration of new + emerging media into the pedagogy of traditional (“orthodox”) graphic design.
• We are done talking about the future of graphic design
• We are interested in THE NOW

Russ: You've got unlimited time and resources, you can build anything in the world you want with your compression — anything at all. What's it gonna be… 3… 2… 1… go! Richard: A new internet. —Silicon Valley, Season 4, Episode 1

“Internet Design.” When we frame terms in quotation marks (both air and actual), we intend to indicate sarcasm, irony or slang. Generally speaking, “internet design” is the type of term from which, as design educators, we’d normally want to distance ourselves. It seems naive, it seems to reflect an antiquated mindset, it seems very…“old way”.

I was catching up with a colleague post-FREE workshop and the conversation meandered to the courses we’re teaching, one is which was “Internet Design.” The names we designate for things are of course never purely descriptive. They are points of delineation that identify boundaries and differentiate one type of work from others. They also help us understand, consciously or not, the lanes in which we’re meant to stay. In the digital space, graphic designers generally agree that “Web Design” is one of our lanes.

The term “Internet Design” got us at WP thinking and talking: if we dive into this notion of teaching design for the Internet (as opposed to Web interfaces), for the many platforms and protocols that utilize Internet-based connectivity, what pedagogical opportunities are presented to us and to our students? Is this this (seemingly) naive title “internet design” in fact a more knowing, more “new way” mode of addressing the design of things that inhabit or are connected via the Internet? And if so, isn't it about time that we stopped remediating existing pedagogical models and developed a pedagogy native to the structure and values of this space?