Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- provocation_1 [2017/10/04 10:50]
127.0.0.1 external edit
+++ provocation_1 [2017/10/10 20:03]
yasmin
@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 “...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 pronounced that it demands a new branch of GD pedagogy and fundamentals.
+  * 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 creating a distinct 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.
+  * 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, their current application and future potential vis a vis our fragmented comprehension of the current cultural moment (aka THE NOW).
+  * 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 competencies of object-centric forms of graphic design. It must prioritize its own skills, values, inquiry, and methods //at the expense of// orthodox GD fundamentals such as print-based typesetting, logo design, analog color theory and composition, etc.
+  * 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.).
 ====== 2/ THE RESPONSE ======
@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 “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. The names we designate for things are of course never purely descriptive. They are points of delineation that identify boundaries between areas of inquiry, 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.
+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.
-But the term “Internet Design” got us at WP thinking and talking: if we dive into this notion of teaching design for the Internet, 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?
+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?
-This was the beginning of the GD Orthodoxy vs. Heterodoxy provocation. The deeper we dove into this notion of teaching students to design for the Internet, the more we realized that certain GD core competencies and/or the way we teach them lost their relevance in this context.