Point . Design: Another Disgruntled Student: "The biggest problem I have with my current design education is I am not an artist. I do not want to paint pretty pictures, draw real looking figures, or be an art historian. These are three areas that seem to
have a lot of time dedicated to them instead of something useful like type, layout or graphic design history."
Another thought crops up here. Justin says art history isn't useful to him, but type, layout or graphic design history would be.
I think graphic designers need to be polymaths, and the idea of turning up my nose at something I didn't think was immediately relevant or "useful" is anathema to me.
I'm sorry to use Justin as my example as I'm really quoting him out of context but it does remind me of a popular educational theory about deep and surface learning. Deep learners are often interested in learning for the sake of it and make connections between seemingly different and disparate areas.
Surface learners learn for the test, so to speak. They like to know who is marking them and then produce a piece that fits that person's tastes. They only attend the lessons they think they need to, and they don't pay much attention to theory classes because "all you have to do is pass".
It has often struck me that graphic design, more than other subjects, is one where there is no set "body of knowledge" that allows us to define what is worth knowing and what isn't. I feel a better designer from having studied maths, for example, than type.
Even the most esoteric knowledge, if taught well and studied well, can be made relevant to graphic design.
Visual Communication: From Theory to Practice
(Winner of 'Best Higher Education Title' at the British Book Awards 2006)
by Jonathan Baldwin and Lucienne Roberts
More Than A Name: An introduction to branding
by Melissa Davis and Jonathan Baldwin
6 comments:
One of my first reactions to Justin's letter was negative. I thought, oh--a lazy "surface learner". But then I remembered my own experience and I probably would have been accused of the same thing. I just wanted to know the most efficient way to get school out of the way so that I could get down to really learning something. The "names and dates" approach to teaching, for example, isn't at all conducive to deep learning in the first place, so why waste your time with it? Just figure out how to pass the test and be done with it. So I think you can be both a "surface learner" and a deep learner at the same time, and Justin seems to be one of them.
I seem to come off that way to a lot of people, I must work on that.
I do believe most of what they teach in my design school can be useful and serves a purpose beyond draining my coffers. Last spring I took a class on monotype. Not particularly useful to me but it did open my eyes to new techniques and ideas, due to a majority of the other students in the class were either painters or printmakers, not designers. I really enjoyed and plan to take another class on it in the future.
Art thistory is the same way. I don't really hate art history, I hate the way it is taught and what you are required to know for the exams. To me, that is surfacing learning at its best. "Here is a list of artists, dates, painting titles and patrons. Memorize it, you have an exam next Friday."
The history behind art since the beginning of man fascinates me. I enjoy reading history books. I can watch BBC, Discovery, The Learning Channel, The History Channel and A&E all day and never get bored. I'll even watch reruns of shows I have seen a hundred times before.
"I feel a better designer from having studied maths, for example, than type."
Definitely at times. Learning other subjects opens up the mind to something new. The subjects of the books on my shelf range from computer databases and server administration to web design and typography to US history and social commentary.
Surface learning can of course be encouraged by teaching and learning methods like those you describe - a course that encourages learning the names of paintings, their artists and the date would turn even the deepest learner into a skimmer. (See "Teaching For Quality Learning at University" by John Biggs for more on surface and deep learning - it's a great book [Amazon UK | Amazon USA])
The trick is to develop a course that has clear aims and outcomes that align with the course philosophy, and are bought into by teachers and students alike.
But in my experience, the majority of teachers teach as they themselves were taught. After all, it worked for them, didn't it?
But teachers are not representative of the vast majority of students, and methods should be sought that engage all students.
This is often dsimissed as "dumbing down" but there is nothing wrong with making a course entertaining or interesting if it achieves its aims. A course that is worthy but dull will not achieve anything.
Sadly many colleges do not value "teaching" and the development of good practice, instead valuing only research or public exhibition. This is true of the UK, I don't know about elsewhere.
I propose that we replace Gardner's "Art Through the Ages," which is my current art history book with Meggs' "A History of Graphic Design."
I borrowed it from the library yesterday and have read about a third of it so far. This is the kind of information I think would benefit a lot more students as opposed to the typical art history taught.
Both of my schools taught Design history in addition to art history. One school used Meggs, and the other school used Hollis's Concise History and Aynsley's Century book. Art I was taught through Jansen's history.
If your school doesn't offer a design history course of some sort, you need to recommend it.
A couple of the instructors say they are working on changing things but from everything I know, they're not trying very hard and they have been saying it for 5 years now.
Post a Comment