A Primer Report for Writing Purposefully in Art & Design – a Higher Education Funding Council for... more A Primer Report for Writing Purposefully in Art & Design – a Higher Education Funding Council for England / FDTL Phase 4 project
A Primer Report for Writing Purposefully in Art & Design – a Higher Education Funding Council for... more A Primer Report for Writing Purposefully in Art & Design – a Higher Education Funding Council for England / FDTL Phase 4 project
9 Reviewing the Art of Crime: What, If Anything, Do Criminals and Artists/Designers Have in Commo... more 9 Reviewing the Art of Crime: What, If Anything, Do Criminals and Artists/Designers Have in Common? Lorraine Gamman and Maziar Raein The dark side of creativity is a slippery concept to explore because the idea of creativity is subject to historically changing definitions. ...
“Education is experience and the essence of experience is self-reliance”
The Once and Future King... more “Education is experience and the essence of experience is self-reliance” The Once and Future King T.H. White. 1939
CUMULUS UTRECHT 2004 The Zone An Area of Transition IN CONTEXT: An examination of the role of research in design education. A paper to the 'Reflexive Zone' R1 Reflexivity in Design Education
Art Design & Communication in Higher Education
The Journal of the Higher Education Academy Subjec... more Art Design & Communication in Higher Education The Journal of the Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for Art, Design, Media Editor Linda Drew Chelsea College of Art and Design, University of the Arts London Guest Editorial Textual and visual interfaces in art and design education Guest edited special theme – Part 2 of 2 Susan Orr York St John College Margo Blythman University of the Arts London Joan Mullin University of Texas at Austin
Traditionally, art and design education in many higher education institutions has been characterized by a split between the teaching of theory and practice. This article argues that this split ignores the possible common ground between the two, largely to the detriment of students. In particular, it will illustrate how and why many art and design students feel alienated by the methods employed in the primarily classroom-based teaching of theory. The article further argues that there exists common ground between theory and practice in the form of research and that this common ground provides opportunities to integrate the two. Students will therefore be able to learn about theory through practice, which corresponds much more closely to students’ needs and abilities. The Context programme of the BA Graphic Design at Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design provides an example where such an integration has taken place successfully.
This paper was written for "In the Making, Nordic Design Research Conference", From Practice to R... more This paper was written for "In the Making, Nordic Design Research Conference", From Practice to Reflection and on to Reflexivity. Copenhagen www.nordes.org/opj/index.php/n13/article/view/242
Traditionally, art and design education in many higher education institutions has been characterised by a split between the teaching of theory and practice. This paper argues that this split ignores the possible common ground between the two, largely to the disadvantage of students. In particular, it will examine how and why many art and design students feel alienated by the methods employed in the teaching of theory. The paper further argues that there is a role for research as a common ground between theory and practice, and this common ground provides opportunities to design curricula that enable students to integrate reflexive and reflective practice.
This was a short discussion paper carried out for the Writing Purposefully for Art & Design, the ... more This was a short discussion paper carried out for the Writing Purposefully for Art & Design, the Higher Education Funding Council of England. This is the recommended reference: Raein, M. (2003) Where is the “I”? A Writing-PAD Short Discussion Paper. Originally published by Writing-PAD www.writing-pad.ac.uk
The aim of this paper is to introduce a number of concepts related to the pedagogies of studio practice and theory within art and design education. Furthermore, it aims to introduce the common elements between the two and raise the question what is the role of " I " is within these traditions. The 1960 National Advisory Council on Art Education report [better known as the Coldstream report], ushered the teaching of art and design history into art schools [and subsequently art and design theory – see the Second Coldstream report] in order 'to lend academic credibility' to studio practice. Though a widening of the scope the pedagogy art and design education was and is still desirable, the methods of teaching art and design history have been adapted unquestioningly from traditional academia, and in essence these teaching methods were and are at odds with traditional studio teaching activities [see John Wood, The Culture of Academic Rigour: does design research really need it?]. In broad terms, art and design theory is taught using the lecture or seminar format and these forms essentially depend on the dissemination of ideas by a lecturer; often a one way stream of information [even in seminars], imparted to students, with reference to text and image. Moreover, the conventions of critical analysis of image and text, have been adapted from the discipline of art history; examining the subject by dismembering the elements, from an objective and detached point of view, looking at its essential elements, comparing and contrasting etc. Therefore, the process of understanding information and its transformation into an active form of knowledge becomes a fundamentally intellectual and cerebral activity for the students. Whilst studio practice, [again broadly speaking and taking note of the differing conventions in fine art and design etc] introduces learning through 'doing' and a distinction is often made between the teaching of 'techniques' and 'creative' activity. Through the act of 'doing' student absorbs knowledge, often incorporating multi–sensory techniques, and this knowledge is transferred to the active imagination, which subsequently engages with the process of creativity. This process is generative and involves many phases ranging from conception of the idea or notion [the sketch book, the happy accident, the coincidence, messing around etc.] through to the making and realisation. Implicit in the tradition of studio teaching is the notion that information is transferred into knowledge only through experience of making, 'happy accidents and all'. It is important to acknowledge here that in some cases the methods of teaching have moved on considerably since the 1960s. However, in the minds of many lecturers in art schools, both studio and theory, there is a wide divide between these two traditions. Furthermore, this divide is considered as the uncomfortable co–existence of two traditions within one institution. Research indicates [Graves, Steffart & Padgett] that the teaching of history and theory often takes little account of the visual learning style of the students. This division is neither necessary nor useful. In recent years the division between practitioners and theorists have broken down and many artists and designers see themselves as 'reflective practitioners'. The question arises; 'what are the elements common to both these traditions that
Socially Responsive Design champions a transformative approach to design that shifts from designi... more Socially Responsive Design champions a transformative approach to design that shifts from designing for people to designing with people. As metadesign researchers and practitioners we approach our work with designers, interdisciplinary specialists and community experts as a shared, creative, open, emergent and adaptive pursuit aimed at attuning behaviours towards more sustainable futures. From our ongoing collaborative experiments with the Metadesigners Research Group at Goldsmiths, University of London and our involvement in SRVD projects with KHiO, Oslo Academy of the Arts, we have framed a set of eight principles and prompts for aspiring socially responsive designers.
A Primer Report for Writing Purposefully in Art & Design – a Higher Education Funding Council for... more A Primer Report for Writing Purposefully in Art & Design – a Higher Education Funding Council for England / FDTL Phase 4 project
A Primer Report for Writing Purposefully in Art & Design – a Higher Education Funding Council for... more A Primer Report for Writing Purposefully in Art & Design – a Higher Education Funding Council for England / FDTL Phase 4 project
9 Reviewing the Art of Crime: What, If Anything, Do Criminals and Artists/Designers Have in Commo... more 9 Reviewing the Art of Crime: What, If Anything, Do Criminals and Artists/Designers Have in Common? Lorraine Gamman and Maziar Raein The dark side of creativity is a slippery concept to explore because the idea of creativity is subject to historically changing definitions. ...
“Education is experience and the essence of experience is self-reliance”
The Once and Future King... more “Education is experience and the essence of experience is self-reliance” The Once and Future King T.H. White. 1939
CUMULUS UTRECHT 2004 The Zone An Area of Transition IN CONTEXT: An examination of the role of research in design education. A paper to the 'Reflexive Zone' R1 Reflexivity in Design Education
Art Design & Communication in Higher Education
The Journal of the Higher Education Academy Subjec... more Art Design & Communication in Higher Education The Journal of the Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for Art, Design, Media Editor Linda Drew Chelsea College of Art and Design, University of the Arts London Guest Editorial Textual and visual interfaces in art and design education Guest edited special theme – Part 2 of 2 Susan Orr York St John College Margo Blythman University of the Arts London Joan Mullin University of Texas at Austin
Traditionally, art and design education in many higher education institutions has been characterized by a split between the teaching of theory and practice. This article argues that this split ignores the possible common ground between the two, largely to the detriment of students. In particular, it will illustrate how and why many art and design students feel alienated by the methods employed in the primarily classroom-based teaching of theory. The article further argues that there exists common ground between theory and practice in the form of research and that this common ground provides opportunities to integrate the two. Students will therefore be able to learn about theory through practice, which corresponds much more closely to students’ needs and abilities. The Context programme of the BA Graphic Design at Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design provides an example where such an integration has taken place successfully.
This paper was written for "In the Making, Nordic Design Research Conference", From Practice to R... more This paper was written for "In the Making, Nordic Design Research Conference", From Practice to Reflection and on to Reflexivity. Copenhagen www.nordes.org/opj/index.php/n13/article/view/242
Traditionally, art and design education in many higher education institutions has been characterised by a split between the teaching of theory and practice. This paper argues that this split ignores the possible common ground between the two, largely to the disadvantage of students. In particular, it will examine how and why many art and design students feel alienated by the methods employed in the teaching of theory. The paper further argues that there is a role for research as a common ground between theory and practice, and this common ground provides opportunities to design curricula that enable students to integrate reflexive and reflective practice.
This was a short discussion paper carried out for the Writing Purposefully for Art & Design, the ... more This was a short discussion paper carried out for the Writing Purposefully for Art & Design, the Higher Education Funding Council of England. This is the recommended reference: Raein, M. (2003) Where is the “I”? A Writing-PAD Short Discussion Paper. Originally published by Writing-PAD www.writing-pad.ac.uk
The aim of this paper is to introduce a number of concepts related to the pedagogies of studio practice and theory within art and design education. Furthermore, it aims to introduce the common elements between the two and raise the question what is the role of " I " is within these traditions. The 1960 National Advisory Council on Art Education report [better known as the Coldstream report], ushered the teaching of art and design history into art schools [and subsequently art and design theory – see the Second Coldstream report] in order 'to lend academic credibility' to studio practice. Though a widening of the scope the pedagogy art and design education was and is still desirable, the methods of teaching art and design history have been adapted unquestioningly from traditional academia, and in essence these teaching methods were and are at odds with traditional studio teaching activities [see John Wood, The Culture of Academic Rigour: does design research really need it?]. In broad terms, art and design theory is taught using the lecture or seminar format and these forms essentially depend on the dissemination of ideas by a lecturer; often a one way stream of information [even in seminars], imparted to students, with reference to text and image. Moreover, the conventions of critical analysis of image and text, have been adapted from the discipline of art history; examining the subject by dismembering the elements, from an objective and detached point of view, looking at its essential elements, comparing and contrasting etc. Therefore, the process of understanding information and its transformation into an active form of knowledge becomes a fundamentally intellectual and cerebral activity for the students. Whilst studio practice, [again broadly speaking and taking note of the differing conventions in fine art and design etc] introduces learning through 'doing' and a distinction is often made between the teaching of 'techniques' and 'creative' activity. Through the act of 'doing' student absorbs knowledge, often incorporating multi–sensory techniques, and this knowledge is transferred to the active imagination, which subsequently engages with the process of creativity. This process is generative and involves many phases ranging from conception of the idea or notion [the sketch book, the happy accident, the coincidence, messing around etc.] through to the making and realisation. Implicit in the tradition of studio teaching is the notion that information is transferred into knowledge only through experience of making, 'happy accidents and all'. It is important to acknowledge here that in some cases the methods of teaching have moved on considerably since the 1960s. However, in the minds of many lecturers in art schools, both studio and theory, there is a wide divide between these two traditions. Furthermore, this divide is considered as the uncomfortable co–existence of two traditions within one institution. Research indicates [Graves, Steffart & Padgett] that the teaching of history and theory often takes little account of the visual learning style of the students. This division is neither necessary nor useful. In recent years the division between practitioners and theorists have broken down and many artists and designers see themselves as 'reflective practitioners'. The question arises; 'what are the elements common to both these traditions that
Socially Responsive Design champions a transformative approach to design that shifts from designi... more Socially Responsive Design champions a transformative approach to design that shifts from designing for people to designing with people. As metadesign researchers and practitioners we approach our work with designers, interdisciplinary specialists and community experts as a shared, creative, open, emergent and adaptive pursuit aimed at attuning behaviours towards more sustainable futures. From our ongoing collaborative experiments with the Metadesigners Research Group at Goldsmiths, University of London and our involvement in SRVD projects with KHiO, Oslo Academy of the Arts, we have framed a set of eight principles and prompts for aspiring socially responsive designers.
Uploads
Papers by Maziar Raein
The Once and Future King
T.H. White. 1939
CUMULUS
UTRECHT 2004
The Zone
An Area of Transition
IN CONTEXT:
An examination of the role of research in design education.
A paper to the 'Reflexive Zone' R1 Reflexivity in Design Education
The Journal of the Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for Art, Design, Media
Editor Linda Drew
Chelsea College of Art and Design, University of the Arts London
Guest Editorial
Textual and visual interfaces in art and design education
Guest edited special theme – Part 2 of 2
Susan Orr
York St John College
Margo Blythman
University of the Arts London
Joan Mullin
University of Texas at Austin
Traditionally, art and design education in many higher education institutions has been characterized by a split between the teaching of theory and practice. This article argues that this split ignores the possible common ground between the two, largely to the detriment of students. In particular, it will illustrate how and why many art and design students feel alienated by the methods employed in the primarily classroom-based teaching of theory. The article further argues that there exists common ground between theory and practice in the form of research and that this common ground provides opportunities to integrate the two. Students will therefore be able to learn about theory through practice, which corresponds much more closely to students’ needs and abilities.
The Context programme of the BA Graphic Design at Central Saint Martins
College of Art and Design provides an example where such an integration has taken place successfully.
Traditionally, art and design education in many higher education institutions has been characterised by a split between the teaching of theory and practice. This paper argues that this split ignores the possible common ground between the two, largely to the disadvantage of students. In particular, it will examine how and why many art and design students feel alienated by the methods employed in the teaching of theory. The paper further argues that there is a role for research as a common ground between theory and practice, and this common ground provides opportunities to design curricula that enable students to integrate reflexive and reflective practice.
This is the recommended reference:
Raein, M. (2003) Where is the “I”? A Writing-PAD Short Discussion Paper. Originally published by Writing-PAD www.writing-pad.ac.uk
The aim of this paper is to introduce a number of concepts related to the pedagogies of studio practice and theory within art and design education. Furthermore, it aims to introduce the common elements between the two and raise the question what is the role of " I " is within these traditions. The 1960 National Advisory Council on Art Education report [better known as the Coldstream report], ushered the teaching of art and design history into art schools [and subsequently art and design theory – see the Second Coldstream report] in order 'to lend academic credibility' to studio practice. Though a widening of the scope the pedagogy art and design education was and is still desirable, the methods of teaching art and design history have been adapted unquestioningly from traditional academia, and in essence these teaching methods were and are at odds with traditional studio teaching activities [see John Wood, The Culture of Academic Rigour: does design research really need it?]. In broad terms, art and design theory is taught using the lecture or seminar format and these forms essentially depend on the dissemination of ideas by a lecturer; often a one way stream of information [even in seminars], imparted to students, with reference to text and image. Moreover, the conventions of critical analysis of image and text, have been adapted from the discipline of art history; examining the subject by dismembering the elements, from an objective and detached point of view, looking at its essential elements, comparing and contrasting etc. Therefore, the process of understanding information and its transformation into an active form of knowledge becomes a fundamentally intellectual and cerebral activity for the students. Whilst studio practice, [again broadly speaking and taking note of the differing conventions in fine art and design etc] introduces learning through 'doing' and a distinction is often made between the teaching of 'techniques' and 'creative' activity. Through the act of 'doing' student absorbs knowledge, often incorporating multi–sensory techniques, and this knowledge is transferred to the active imagination, which subsequently engages with the process of creativity. This process is generative and involves many phases ranging from conception of the idea or notion [the sketch book, the happy accident, the coincidence, messing around etc.] through to the making and realisation. Implicit in the tradition of studio teaching is the notion that information is transferred into knowledge only through experience of making, 'happy accidents and all'. It is important to acknowledge here that in some cases the methods of teaching have moved on considerably since the 1960s. However, in the minds of many lecturers in art schools, both studio and theory, there is a wide divide between these two traditions. Furthermore, this divide is considered as the uncomfortable co–existence of two traditions within one institution. Research indicates [Graves, Steffart & Padgett] that the teaching of history and theory often takes little account of the visual learning style of the students. This division is neither necessary nor useful. In recent years the division between practitioners and theorists have broken down and many artists and designers see themselves as 'reflective practitioners'. The question arises; 'what are the elements common to both these traditions that
The Once and Future King
T.H. White. 1939
CUMULUS
UTRECHT 2004
The Zone
An Area of Transition
IN CONTEXT:
An examination of the role of research in design education.
A paper to the 'Reflexive Zone' R1 Reflexivity in Design Education
The Journal of the Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for Art, Design, Media
Editor Linda Drew
Chelsea College of Art and Design, University of the Arts London
Guest Editorial
Textual and visual interfaces in art and design education
Guest edited special theme – Part 2 of 2
Susan Orr
York St John College
Margo Blythman
University of the Arts London
Joan Mullin
University of Texas at Austin
Traditionally, art and design education in many higher education institutions has been characterized by a split between the teaching of theory and practice. This article argues that this split ignores the possible common ground between the two, largely to the detriment of students. In particular, it will illustrate how and why many art and design students feel alienated by the methods employed in the primarily classroom-based teaching of theory. The article further argues that there exists common ground between theory and practice in the form of research and that this common ground provides opportunities to integrate the two. Students will therefore be able to learn about theory through practice, which corresponds much more closely to students’ needs and abilities.
The Context programme of the BA Graphic Design at Central Saint Martins
College of Art and Design provides an example where such an integration has taken place successfully.
Traditionally, art and design education in many higher education institutions has been characterised by a split between the teaching of theory and practice. This paper argues that this split ignores the possible common ground between the two, largely to the disadvantage of students. In particular, it will examine how and why many art and design students feel alienated by the methods employed in the teaching of theory. The paper further argues that there is a role for research as a common ground between theory and practice, and this common ground provides opportunities to design curricula that enable students to integrate reflexive and reflective practice.
This is the recommended reference:
Raein, M. (2003) Where is the “I”? A Writing-PAD Short Discussion Paper. Originally published by Writing-PAD www.writing-pad.ac.uk
The aim of this paper is to introduce a number of concepts related to the pedagogies of studio practice and theory within art and design education. Furthermore, it aims to introduce the common elements between the two and raise the question what is the role of " I " is within these traditions. The 1960 National Advisory Council on Art Education report [better known as the Coldstream report], ushered the teaching of art and design history into art schools [and subsequently art and design theory – see the Second Coldstream report] in order 'to lend academic credibility' to studio practice. Though a widening of the scope the pedagogy art and design education was and is still desirable, the methods of teaching art and design history have been adapted unquestioningly from traditional academia, and in essence these teaching methods were and are at odds with traditional studio teaching activities [see John Wood, The Culture of Academic Rigour: does design research really need it?]. In broad terms, art and design theory is taught using the lecture or seminar format and these forms essentially depend on the dissemination of ideas by a lecturer; often a one way stream of information [even in seminars], imparted to students, with reference to text and image. Moreover, the conventions of critical analysis of image and text, have been adapted from the discipline of art history; examining the subject by dismembering the elements, from an objective and detached point of view, looking at its essential elements, comparing and contrasting etc. Therefore, the process of understanding information and its transformation into an active form of knowledge becomes a fundamentally intellectual and cerebral activity for the students. Whilst studio practice, [again broadly speaking and taking note of the differing conventions in fine art and design etc] introduces learning through 'doing' and a distinction is often made between the teaching of 'techniques' and 'creative' activity. Through the act of 'doing' student absorbs knowledge, often incorporating multi–sensory techniques, and this knowledge is transferred to the active imagination, which subsequently engages with the process of creativity. This process is generative and involves many phases ranging from conception of the idea or notion [the sketch book, the happy accident, the coincidence, messing around etc.] through to the making and realisation. Implicit in the tradition of studio teaching is the notion that information is transferred into knowledge only through experience of making, 'happy accidents and all'. It is important to acknowledge here that in some cases the methods of teaching have moved on considerably since the 1960s. However, in the minds of many lecturers in art schools, both studio and theory, there is a wide divide between these two traditions. Furthermore, this divide is considered as the uncomfortable co–existence of two traditions within one institution. Research indicates [Graves, Steffart & Padgett] that the teaching of history and theory often takes little account of the visual learning style of the students. This division is neither necessary nor useful. In recent years the division between practitioners and theorists have broken down and many artists and designers see themselves as 'reflective practitioners'. The question arises; 'what are the elements common to both these traditions that