Working at a school in North London where a former neighbour is now headmaster has made be realise just how important good leadership is to creatives. Though something I've always pushed in the work for my degree it's nice to see it works in application and not theory.
It's not just about delegation, and in my case having a boss who constantly challenges me directly to push what we can do in what's an incredibly limited budget and space is fantastic. But it only comes together when you add another important ingredient - he can really take positive criticism. He'll come down like a ton of bricks on anyone who moans without offering a solution, but point out a problem or a mistake he's made and offer a suggestion of the way you think it could be improved and he'll encourage you to push it all the way. If only more of our country worked that way.
Throughout our academic systems we're near enough punished if we step outside the regimented tick boxes, and even in Art & Design education our process of evaluation seems to be down to how well we can complete a series of processes, not on the quality of our design. In industry those of us who go above and beyond, and who push for change in an inefficient system will succeed, none more so than our colleagues in the creative sector. Meanwhile in our schools and colleges, even some with the best reputation, the highest marks are to be gained by sticking exactly to answering the learning outcomes, no more, no less.
Personally I'm growingly frustrated by my own degree experience due to the inability of my course to provide for the practitioner they have encouraged me to develop into. From a fairly certain fresh faced sixth formed at the beginning of my foundation year wanting to be a product designer, I moved to jewellery, then Artefact design, and now design management and leadership. We are constantly shown collaborative and multidisciplinary practice from Heatherwick, FAT, Future systems etc. but when it comes down how a creative can change over the course of three years there is no capacity for this to be dealt with. It has been pointed out that my numerous changes in focus indicate a problem with my own identity as a design practitioner but in an age where multidisciplinary is seemingly included in so many texts on good design practice where is the line between these two states?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Spell-checking before posting might be advisable...
Hello Kit,
It's great to see blogs like this popping up around the course.
In responding to this post I can tick some boxes!
I've had experience with the course.Tick.
I've had experience with design management. Tick.
I'd like to offer some thoughts on this and bear in mind that in an external blog and as a visiting tutor I don't feel an obligation to defend the course or it's workings.
I'll also respond directly and personally in the style of your post.
You talked about being punished for
stepping outside the tick boxes, being judged by completing processes rather than quality of design.
I can see why you may think this way but consider this:
The course and it's associated requirements, style and philosophy are all part of a larger culture. Personally I find some it of frustrating, confusing and actually cowardly. I think it's part of a 'foggy' contemporary culture that gets confused about hierarchies of information, it's communication and meaning.
The more complicated a system is the more chances for error and the broader the interpretation.
I may get into trouble for this but I can think one one assessment sheet used in the fist year that puts two learning outcomes in one box and another two in another box. I worry about how the students are supposed to understand what they are being graded for.
I understand that the course has to adhere to certain guidelines with regard to the use of and communication of learning outcomes etc and so in many respects the course and tutors are bound by this.
It's difficult, if not impossible, even considering the potential to carry out some research in this area to get an historic perspective on this but i'll go out on a limb and say that it's never been ideal.
The bottom line is that the tutors can look at any 100 projects and give those projects a relative grade. It doesn't matter if there is one box or 100 boxes we could assign a grade.
There are advantages to this system. We have to specify more precisely the criteria we are using to assess your work and your learning. In theory his means there is less margin for misinterpretation and less chance that a student can think that a tutor is less than objective.
It's about time I got back to the point. We don't judge processes rather than quality of design. I can see why you may think this but it's just not true. I haven't got time to go into this more precisely so forgive he crude explanation. We are primarily interested in good design, in quality of design, that's what the course i all about and it's the ambition we have for you guys. If we had a different set of boxes or one, all encompassing box it really wouldn't matter. We are dealing with the teaching and learning of design and the process of designing.
Students vary in their approach to design, obviously. Some students start the course full of potential but are inexperienced in the design process. Isn't it sensible to look at all students and make sure that they are able to go through a set of processes that encourage good design? We can't teach leaps of imagination but we can foster a dynamic and creative process that the majority of designers use.
I can think of a project of yours back the the first year where you were skipping steps in the process that resulted in the creation of a model with little regard for dynamic design. You were primarily interested in jumping from a basic( though interesting) idea to the creation of a model and were primarily concerned with aesthetics and materiality. What do we say to you in this situation? We want to encourage your enthusiasm and are impressed by your awareness in certain areas but we need to promote a process that encourages you to explore more possibilities, to take the project to a new, more dynamic conclusion. For me in this situation it seemed that you were more interested in process than 'good design'.
In that situation you would lose nothing. By following that process (and ticking boxes) your project would evolve and your would be tackling design principles more thoroughly leading to a better design and developing a more sophisticated practice leading to a general higher quality of design.
I hope you don't mind me talking specifically about one of you projects and particularly from so long ago but I hope it gives you an insight into our process.
The multi-disciplinary thing. It's always tricky, especially for students who are on a course but start to develop interests in areas not specifically covered by the course. I guess the option is there to migrate to another course. There is no easy solution. How can a course offering a degree in architecture for example not have dedicated architects? The majority of students will want a damn good grounding in architecture, it's why they applied and they are paying fees.
The course does have a multi-disciplinary nature that is reflected in the staffing. If you subscribe to this idea then you'll appreciate how a tutor, like a student, can step across boundaries. If you consider the pathways that are separate but linked and the changes that happen (i.e increased specialisation) as you progress through the course surely you can see why the course is staffed this way?
I can understand your frustration if while on a pathway that you chose you are now finding that you are interested in another area, or maybe more specifically that you wish to work across disciplines.
Apart from your frustration there are issues here. A degree it could be argued, equips a person with a certain amount of expertise, they become an expert in that area. If you do not specialise then you miss the opportunity to take your given practise to a level of sophistication that will equip you with confidence, knowledge, understanding and experience.
What would be the point of a design manager who has never had the experience of producing quality work at degree level? The thing about the multi-disciplinary teams you have quoted is that they are made up of people who went through the pain barrier with their practise and now on the other side can see, that, yes design is design, creativity is creativity and it need not be classified arbitrarily. If at this level you do not specialise to a certain extent you will not be able to gain the benefits and insights that will help in your area.
Design management is incredibly demanding. If you are lucky enough to have a good team and depending on the work you are going to need specialists, damn good specialists. You're going to need a shared language and to understand when members know more than you do. You're going to need diplomacy and humility and foster a sense of trust. You're also going to be responsible for budgets and the working practises of the team and how different disciplines share a common process. Your superior(s) are going to expect things to be streamlined in terms of work flow and how and why wages are spent on certain staff.
If the design turn over in this situation is fast and furious you won't have the luxury of waiting for inspiration, the thing that will get you through will be a solid, shared and agreed working process.
With regard to the idea that the course director could/should be an 'architect/product designer/artist/interior design practitioner with experience across all of the areas the course covers..' Are you kidding? Have you ever met one of them? Do they exist? If so I wouldn't work with them. I'd suggest that someone who worked in all those areas could have little integrity in any given area and i'd even go so far as to say they'd have to be a complete amateur with little understanding of each area.
From my limited knowledge working with Geoffrey I know he's an architect and I know that he can cover design. I've been in debates where he's stepped into areas that are more my speciality and he's been sharper than I was. I haven't seen much art or interior design on the course, have you? If work strays into those areas i'm sure he's more than capable of dealing with it as are the people from an art background who deal expertly with design.
You can't have it both ways Kit!
I'm not trying to bash you at all. I admire your passion and willingness to speak out. I'm just trying to get across the other side of things. We deal with thorough process because it encourages good design. The course tries to balance multi-disciplined practise with specialisation and it's tricky, granted. But if you want to influence the course, to bring about change (which I imagine is tricky at the best of times) you're going to need to consider your stance more carefully, especially if you mention names and question credentials or ability to fulfill the job's requirements.
(re-posted to correct typos)
Post a Comment