Reading 1

Nigel Cross, “Designerly Ways of Knowing”

Question 1:

Cross describes the values of design as being such; practicality, ingenuity, empathy and a concern for appropriateness. Is he describing what the ideal values of design are? In reality, the design process might not be practical or have a sense of appropriateness, but rather be the opposite. All avenues of thought are explored through design.

 

Question 2:

Peters states that “one is trained as a designer, or doctor, or philosopher, but that alone does not make one educated. It is ironic that we state that “you must go to college and get an education”. Architectural schools in general do state that they are training you to be a designer. Does the idea of being truly educated in  the way that Peters is describing it come from the practice of design in the real world? Is one considered “educated” once t hey take the knowledge they have learned and apply it to the real world? If this is the case, are professors who only stay in academia and do not practice considered “educated”?

 

Question 3:

Cross stated, “Concrete/ironic modes of cognition are particularly relevant in design, whereas the formal/symbolic modes are more relevant in the sciences.” Why is this? Can’t the process of gathering knowledge in design be formal or symbolic as well?

 

Reading 2

Johan Verbeke, “This Is Research By Design”

Question 1:

Is design too broad a subject to incorporate into research? Glanville stated that “The problem for design and research is that the academy has become too specialized. Science used to mean knowledge. Today, it has come to be known as a particular type of knowledge.” There are many different aspects of design. In order to research by design, does design need to be more focused into a specific category or means of design?

 

Question 2:

If research is design, then is design research? Would the act of researching through design mean that you are researching your research? By that I mean, the design process, which is considered research, creates something that can be subject to evaluation and further research.

 

Question 3:

“Research by design results in the development of spatial understanding and human ecology which has daily impacts on behavior and living conditions. It is not about analytical thinking in the narrow sense, but rather exploration.” Does this article contradict whether or not design is “Research” or “research”, as suggested in the previous classes reading by Frayling? By saying research by design is about exploration, does this mean that this method of research is research with a little “r”?

Reading 1

Christopher Frayling, “Research in Art and Design”

Question 1:

In design school, is the approach of research-first, then build more effective than design first, then research? This is a question that has to do with providing a means to an end. What is more productive? Is this question subjective and based on the individual designer? If you study Chris Romano and Nick Bruscia’s “2XMT” the research informed the final built product. When you compare this do Dennis Maher’s “Aggregate Lost”, the structure is built first and then studied and interpreted after.

Question 2:

There are certain mediums that can be used to describe both “research” and “Research”. One example is art. There are different types of art that could be considered one or the other. How does one define the difference between the two when considering the same medium? Does the commercialization of an idea have anything to do in differentiating “research” and “Research”? Most often, “Research” is developed in hopes of gaining knowledge to use in the creation of a product.  “research” is done for self fulfillment, or fun. An example is Ball State’s tensegrity structure for a local art fair. Is this installation considered “Research” or “research”… Or both?

Another example of using art to inform research is photography. Photography turns art into research… The act of observation leads to a static image, which can be questioned and used to formulate a hypothesis.

 

Question 3:

Does “Research” earn the title because it is peer reviewed? Does the approval of others make research valid?

 

Reading 2

David Solomon, “Experimental Cultures: On the ‘End’ of the Design Thesis and the Rise of the Research Studio“

Question 1:

Does the act of doing away with the individual thesis have a negative effect on the student? By replacing it with the “advanced studio”, does the student benefit from having a another semester of design studio similar to their previous 11 studios before that? Being able to do research, formulate an idea, and see it through is an invaluable skill that every student should learn. Even if it is directed by a faculty member and not individually.

 

Question 2:

In the late 19th century design was thought to be the most important subject taught in architecture school with the least academic credentials. Today it is still emphasized as the most important subject and it now consumes a large portion of academic credentials. Is this a matter of emphasis on design over function? Are we moving towards a phase where design is all consuming and the elements that are placed within a structure are almost an afterthought? If so, is this a good lesson to be teaching future architects. If not, should we be designing with the systems already integrated to help benefit the design. Would this force the way studio is taught traditionally today to be structured in a new way?

Question 3:

Does the thesis reflect the curriculum or does it create a new curriculum? Does the act of researching, discovering something new, and building upon it lead to the creation of something that people can use to learn and design from?