@ Thoughtfully (James, Chris & Stuart) and James Corazzo – Design Tutor
Firstly, simply setting educational institutions in binary opposition to the ‘real world’ would be a simplistic and reactionary strategy (and one that would be defined by the very parameters under attack). Contra to such a stumbling, duelling, duality I want to present universities as privileged institutional sites that, while residing in the world, are capable of resisting it.
Secondly, I am not denouncing the domain of production but the control mechanisms that order the relations of production. Commercial practice exists primarily as a domain of intensity that demands efficiency, assurance, expertise, etcetera—in short a professionalism. However the search for alterity often requires contemplation that models of efficiency destroy. Therefore, the inherent danger in introducing the demands of intensity into the arena of reflexivity is the former dominates the latter.
Thirdly, this critique is not directly concerned with the appearance of particular instances (although it is possible to link dispersed practices to indicate an emerging trend), such as your own, but with the lack of critical analysis of such practices. This prodding seeks to locate the points assumption and subjective assertion in order to open up a finality.
Thus, if we are all concerned to develop the students ‘initiative, altruism, flexibility, relationships, independence and crucially confidence’ then, I would argue, there are other partnerships that would prove much more challenging and invigorating for all concerned. This would simply entail the replacement of vocational practices with professions from outside the sphere of design that would challenge the student’s creativity and offer the opportunity for new communicative and creative models and practices to emerge. The encounter demands the development of the student’s communicative capabilities and integrates them in relations that may not understand, care for or appreciate design. Placing non-commercial clients of design into the universities provides a platform in which design can inform others practices of its particular qualities, but design/ers (students and staff) are in turn also informed by other thoughts, ways, methods, and practices. This shift in relations would be radical and challenge the self-affirming repeating pattern that ensnares much design. By redirecting the object of concern away from itself, the positive aspects of your initiative would resonate far deeper and have transformatory effects beyond the remit of a design practice.
My argument then is not an affirmation of the necessity of division but rather a concern with the placement of particular forces. That is a care for the organisation, distribution, and direction of the thoughts and practices that determine our realities. Thus, my position is not organised against ‘ecologies of collaboration’ but rather the effects that such relations have in defining the field of possible actions and for critical reflection upon such alliances. I am arguing for the defence of a space and a time that can close all too quickly once students leave university. To introduce that closure into the university only makes sense if universities are concerned with reproducing practices and not producing challenges.
Walls in themselves then are not inherently negative, but are positioned to have particular effects. Perforation then is a tool we can employ to introduce transference, but equally we would need to recognise the moments where we need to reinforce the barricades.
http://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2009/june/the-thoughtful-six
vaporwave
turnnoffyourmind
2087
titsay
gummygunk
annaxmalina
ellievsbear
blakekathryn