So, I wrote Jeff an email mentioning that I was really curious about the design orientation of the program. The more I’m here, I told him, the more I appreciate the interdisciplinary approach to informatics that the program embodies. So many different perspectives, so much emphasis on social and aesthetic aspects – it’s all very, very cool. As I’m sure you will agree.
And yet, after arriving here, I was surprised by the paucity of attention paid to the theories, canons, practice, history or even existence of “traditional design” (e.g. the “core” design disciplines of graphic, industrial, fashion design, etc.). Few of the students, little in the curriculum and practically none of the faculty come from that world.
Mind you, this isn’t something that I’m having a problem with, I told Jeff, but I still can’t help but be a little surprised by it. After all, the program is broad enough in its scope to embrace ethnology, musicology, philosophy and all matter of other Ologies, yet in a field that clearly has so tremendous a visual and tactile basis as Informatics can in application, why not pay at least some attention to the formalisms of (non-computational) Design?
Jeff’s answer, clever weasel that he can be, was that it was a good question – good enough, in fact, that it should become a blog conversation.
Which it now, officially, is. 😉
Please feel free to run with this. But just to get things started, here’s a question: if there were a class offered in the curriculum that introduced you to the pracitcal use of the Elements and Principals of Design, would you take it?