Advice for a young designer

Posted on by Brian Hughes
(click for source)

A friend of mine is wondering how to navigate undergraduate-level design classes (and perhaps ultimately a major or minor). More specifically, he is weighing the difference between “graphic design” and “web design”—and he asked for my thoughts.

Firstly, it matters what kind of work you imagine doing after college… but let’s say that you could do that work and have majored in either field.

Then it matters if you want to take one kind of class more than the others… but let’s say that you don’t have a preference.

Let’s say that what you’re asking is, “What will employer preferences be like when I graduate?” Then, perhaps the subtext here is, “What kind of career should I have?”

OK, so that’s too hard to answer. So let’s go back a step. (In fact, let’s say you don’t know what kind of career you want.)

That makes it a little easier for me to give the following advice: find the college instructors that will make you the very best design thinker.

What is a Design Thinker?

I’m not sure I know. Tim Brown might—he’s a major proponent of the… idea? theory?– I do know that “design thinking” represents an interesting set of related ideas about collaboration, problem-solving, and production. And it seems to apply widely to the way the people and organizations imagine doing good work.

Some characteristics and behaviors that have been useful to me personally (in my own experience and as observed in my collaborators) are:

  • Being a generalist—having a little bit of knowledge about a lot of things (read widely! discuss!)
  • Being a generative thinker—contributing a lot (be brave! drink coffee!)
  • Being empathetic—with both your collaborators and end-users in mind (be observant! be generous!)
  • Being creative—adding a point of view that isn’t already represented (be…um,  creative…)

So: when you go to college—probably any college—find someone (or several people!) who can you help you become better at all of these things.

Then find meaningful internships. Those will give you useful fodder for job interviews.

Oh, and don’t take my advice. I wrote this pretty quickly. Get a second opinion! etc.

(And for an extra hundred bucks, and about a week of effort, you can pick up the specific skills you need to be a good-enough graphic designer or web designer.)

Epistemic Games… and GAPS?

Posted on by Brian Hughes

This is an intriguing new marketing direction for the Epistemic Games Group: GAPS

Games and Professional Simulations [GAPS] is a cooperative group comprised of six research groups across the country. We are headquartered by the Epistemic Games Group at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

(Love the idea, dislike the acronym?) Also check out this vialogue featuring Padraig Nash’s recent talk on “distributed mentoring” at the EdLab. Cool stuff!

A Democratic Agency

Posted on by Brian Hughes

For me, the story about EdLab—its purpose, vision, and strategy—boils down to the goal of democracy. This post is a reflection on today’s seminar by Gary Natriello, but I think it may also resonate with anyone who’s a part of a similar organization.

Gary articulated a vision of the future of the education sector that follows from a few basic assumptions about learning, economics, and technology. Namely, that the so-called “digital revolution” is ringing in a new age of “networked learning” (think: low-cost, p2p learning). He also shared his concern that while we ought to want to help shape this future, it seems unlikely that we at EdLab—as products of the current educational system—can feasibly do so. Why exactly? Because it would be too hard for us to participate in the midwifery of this new sector: pay cuts, lay-offs, new (possibly lower, or non-existant) educational standards, and so on.

Sound bad? It sounded even more bleak when he said it in front of a Keynote deck that juxtaposed glamourous visions of childhood with the realities of work at Foxconn. . .

But I don’t really follow his line of thinking all the way down that bleak path, and I’m particularly skeptical about two of his basic assumptions (and let me acknowledge that it’s easy to be skeptical—it’s hard to be the one in front of the room).

Assumption #1: We currently prioritize uniformity as an educational outcome.

Well. . . I guess so, but it seems like uniformity is just one of many outcomes of the current educational system. I agree we value it, as it seems integral to a democratic ideal of equal opportunity, so it’s hard to imagine a successful democracy without a shared sense of history, science, culture, etc. Perhaps Gary’s view of education can aptly be described as post-democratic.

Assumption #2: The expense of the current educational system makes it unsustainable.

I don’t know enough about economic principles to mount a compelling counterargument, but what the heck, it’s a blog, right? I don’t buy it, and here’s why: Somewhere there must be a principle of modern capitalism about potential and purpose of “creating new markets,” and the point must be that when everything is accounted for, there is a huge surplus of labor in the world. That is, the amenities of capital-generating activities seem to be diverse enough to support a virtuous circle of labor. (Sure wealth is distributed unequally, but hey, a lot of people are willing to work to afford the data plan on their iPhone.)

Why should this come to an end? And why shouldn’t education—even in its increasingly expensive forms—partake in this economy? My response to Gary is that the current education is sustainable. But I wouldn’t want to suggest that it’s deeply democratic. In terms of the cost of education, I think the education sector is already incredibly diverse (though we don’t like to admit it)—if only because education is so unevenly applied (note: additional skepticism about uniformity). So it’s going to become more interestingly diverse as different types of education are increasingly acknowledged as legitimate. In this way, I think Gary’s view is overly pessimistic about future economic conditions.

Conclusions

When I reflect on where my views intersect with Gary’s, I’m confronted by a surprisingly optimistic view of education. It’s a view that counterbalances the news cycle—how putting iPads in kid’s hands is going to empower them and “save schools”—and affords us a different, more democratic space to work (at EdLab, and similar do-tanks). Yes, it’s a technology-rich space, but that’s not the point. Our goal is to locate or create cheap tools that give more learners access to key knowledge. It’s not about the best education. It’s probably not even good yet. But it’s getting better, and more real every day.

Further Questions. . .

  • Isn’t the Internet itself enough? It’s cheap, and it provides key knowledge! But let’s make it even better. . .
  • Can or should educational organizations compete with no-cost, advertising-driven technologies?
  • Can or will the anti-democratic effects of high-cost education ever be overcome through other social means?

Drawing and an Argument for its Autonomy

Posted on by Brian Hughes

Should the ability to draw be seen as a literacy? Is it sensible to characterize the act of drawing as the reduction of  multi- dimensional events to readable two-dimensional imagery?

Last Thursday I was lucky to attend a lecture and conversation by Professors Stephen Farthing and Simon Betts on “The Bigger Picture of Drawing: A New Curriculum a New Pedagogy” at the Macy Gallery at Teachers College. From the gallery website:

Visiting professors Farthing and Betts will speak about the bigger picture of drawing, and their new UK high school drawing qualifications and Masters course. They will discuss together the implications these courses have on pedagogy and student learning.

The generally spoke of the value of drawing, and offered a vast definition of drawing –  taking stock of drawing in diverse places and cultures to make their case, such as the example of the Maori tattoos.

Response

What stood out to me is how their argument in favor of drawing literacy at least partly seems to be driven by the belief that drawing should be understood as not only a “literacy,” but as a distinct practice (understood as theorists Michael Walzer and Alasdair MacIntyre would have us understand “social practices” as distinct contexts of meaning and truth) within the broader domain of the visual arts.

Should drawing be seen this way? It would follow that drawing would have more autonomous value – a different value from other art practices and other cultural activity. This line of reasoning seems appealing, especially in light of a pervasive condition described by an audience member – the familiar observation that “all children begin by loving drawing, and most learn to believe they are not ‘good at it’ by the time they are in middle school.” (TC professor Judy Burton traced this experience back to drawing being “taught as a technical skill.”) Let’s take a closer look.

It seems to me that Farthing and Betts are proposing shoring up such autonomy with a weak and strong definition of drawing – locating it both within other domains (examples offered ranged from the obvious (architecture) to the more obscure (financial planning and social greeting)), and as the center of its own domain (and hence a full-featured practice). Unfortunately, if we look at the kinds of cultural institutions that other Practices rely on to maintain autonomy, it seems like a difficult road ahead: the autonomy of legal practice, for example, is supported by vast professional organizations, educational norms, social networks, and physical infrastructure. A larger question that emerges (for me, at least): Can school and the academy really be the epicenter of a cultural practice? With the worry that students lose interest in drawing because they “can’t do it” in mind, it seems overly hopeful that the problem can be corrected by, in, and primarily through an educational context. Are Farthing and Betts really proposing something more? Would they be comfortable with a primetime television show “American Drawer” or celebrity draw-offs? Or ultimately is a different direction such as shoring up the autonomy of “the visual arts” or “visual culture” preferable?

I’m not sure. As a serious (if former) student of drawing, I would first like to believe that there need be no serious and sustained theoretical argument to secure a space for drawing within public education. But as they say, times are tough. Granting that we need such an argument, it then pains me that it must be so far-reaching as to rest on shifting claims (between a weak and strong definition) about its foundation and, therefore, value. As much as it pains me to admit, I think we might be better off hitching drawing’s presence in education to existing arguments about the visual arts (as a broader category of artistic practice) – arguments that could benefit from diverse examples of the important impact of drawing on culture and, at an importantly small scale, human well-being. I suspect Farthing and Betts are sympathetic to this approach, but their presentation needs some retooling to better position the distinctive nature, impact, and promise of drawing.

On the other hand, what about a t-shirt service? Submit a drawing and get it put on a shirt! Maybe there could also be a cross-funding opportunity to an important humanitarian cause (think no further than what the color pink currently represents) combined with something about the identity of the drawer that reinforces a cross-domain basis of expertise and utility . . .

Miscellany

As for the issue of students’ “losing faith” in their own ability to draw, I wonder: Is formal instruction the dominant cause of people losing interest (and/or confidence) in drawing? What else might be a part of this attitude shift?

On the distinction between craft and art, Dean Betts claimed “[craft] doesn’t have within it the key to make sense of it?” This seems far-reaching and, for me at least, demonstrated the weakness of a simple dichotomy between art and craft. It’s an interested thought experiment: Does art really always carry its own “key?”

Schools for Tomorrow

Posted on by Brian Hughes

Nothing like a livestream to make it real.

I’m speaking on “Tools Available in College” at The New York Times Schools for Tomorrow event. In their words:

. . . we’re bringing together 400 of the most influential leaders in teaching, government, philanthropy and industry. The goal: to harness the power of technology to improve the learning experience. Democratize access to quality education. And elevate the American student to a higher level.

I’m looking forward to the dialogue!

Richard Eldridge Day

Posted on by Brian Hughes

The first chapter to Richard Eldridge’s An Introduction to the Philosophy of Art provided a good basis for discussion in class last week. He really shows off his interest in Romanticism, and his leanings towards a Pragmatic philosophy of art. We talked about the problem of “not having a perfect philosophy,” located some philosophizing on a few spectrums-of-discourse, and looked at the history (and problem) of metaphysics as a foundational pillar of the philosophy of art. Good stuff for a first discussion!

Two Steves

Posted on by Brian Hughes

I’ll be using my friend Steven Wolkoff’s work as a talking point in class tomorrow.

This kind of formalism gives us a lot to think about. What happens if/when students make art like this in school? How can a teacher approach it? What could they say about it to other students? These kinds of questions will be at the heart of our investigations this semester.

Juxtapose that with Steve Lambert’s recent work:

“Capitalism Works for Me! True/False”

It’s much more politically charged (I think you’ll agree). If this kind of work is being done in a high school art classroom, for example, how can teachers and students respond? How can historical and philosophical foundation support and enhance both these kinds of work?

Intellectual Cosmopolitanism

Posted on by Brian Hughes
A suggestive graphic by http://www.flickr.com/photos/acolavecchio/

I’m getting excited for the upcoming New York Times’ Schools for Tomorrow conference, and working on my presentation. I’ll be on the “Tools Available (college-level)” panel, and I’d like to convey some ideas about the future balance between tradition and timeliness in the academy. It’s hard to articulate an interesting position in the 5-10 minutes that I’ll likely have. So here’s one idea . . .

Without prognosticating, I’ll sketch out a view of the growing necessity of intellectual cosmopolitanism at the K-12 level—the idea that curriculum must continue to diversify around cultures and cultural practices.[1] Why? Well, as people around the world are increasingly connected, it’ll be harder to maintain a narrow worldview—and related mental habits. Right? (Hey, I’m not suggesting this will happen overnight.) In other words: more tech = more appreciation of diversity.

The import for college-level learning is that students will already have formed a two-pronged approach to education: increasingly relying on personal and non-school tools (more appreciation of diversity = a greater economic incentive to learn) for rote and “professional” learning (including deep expertise in academic subjects) while engaging community-focused and group-based learning in the classroom.

On this view (and let’s say 10-20 years away, just to push the limits of non-prognostication), civics emerges as a dominant theme of secondary formal education, while higher education increasingly becomes grounded in problem-solving (now more fashionably called “design”). Traditional modes of liberal learning (reading, writing, discussing) will not disappear so much as take place outside of formal education (fingers-crossed?). Instead of lamenting this retreat, educators must to pursue ways to connect group work to liberal learning—to make it count, so to speak.

Sound familiar? The more things change . . .

OK, so this isn’t groundbreaking stuff, but I think this perspective allows me to speak to several interesting points:

  • Group work will be standard practice. And it needs to get much better. Mainstream collaboration tools like Google Docs have improved communication and information sharing (full disclosure: I haven’t yet checked for evidence here), but there is room for improvement and specialization. Today, there are dozens of collaborative writing tools for different purposes. We can expect to see these options across all disciplines and modes of knowledge-sharing. Goodbye lectures.
  • Certification will happen outside of school. Yep, that’s right: no more “high stakes” tests in college, at least. Probably K-12 too. Students will still have to take them for a variety of reasons, but they’ll be created and offered by national (international!) consortiums (of one sort or another) and proctored by a handful private companies (want to take the SAT at a Google facility, anyone?).
  • Open data standards don’t matter. Students of all ages will want access to their own data. And they should get it from small companies and large educational organizations alike by virtue of market pressure. But that doesn’t mean companies have to adopt complex systems (like Raymond’s data backpack). I know this is speaking heresy, but this is good news for small companies who would otherwise be squeezed out of the education space but tech giants—a scenario that would be reminiscent of publishing giants dictating curriculum through textbook production.

Thoughts? I still have plenty of time to sharpen my thinking!

[1] I’m not sure if the term “intellectual cosmopolitanism” has been used elsewhere, but I think it poetically captures the force that technologies are exerting on curriculums and teaching practices.

Philosophy as History

Posted on by Brian Hughes

This afternoon I had the honor of working with Art Education students in Teachers College’s Instep program – thinking about John Dewey’s legacy and impact on art education. As preparation for the lecture and group activity (collaboratively writing philosophies of art education), we read:

  • Ursula Niklas’ “On the Philosophy of Teaching Philosophy of Art” to reflect on how philosophical methods can be used in different ways within the context of art education.
  • The Encyclopedia of Aesthetic Philosophy’s “John Dewey: Survey of Thought” entry on John Dewey for a historical look at the impact Dewey had on discussion of art, education, and philosophy.
  • Three chapters from John Dewey’s “Art as Experience” to better understand his philosophical views and context (at the very least read the “The Live Creature” passage from 525-540).
  • The Wikipedia entry on Richard Shusterman (a contemporary aesthetic philosopher) to see how Dewey’s philosophy continues to serve as a philosophical touchstone (especially the “Definitions of art” section): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Shusterman (Actually, they didn’t get the Shusterman reading in time, but I spoke about it in my short lecture.)

It was a tough session to plan for, as I wanted to provide a broad view of Dewey’s relevance to art education, but also engage the class in thinking about the use and purpose of philosophy in their own teaching practices. Still, in good hermeneutic fashion, I tried to allow for both.

I asked everyone in the class to say a bit about their background in grappling with a teaching philosophy, and perhaps it was no surprise that people had a wide range of experiences – with respect to geography, philosophy, and education.

During the course of my talk, some interesting questions arose – about the use of wikipedia for doing philosophy, about my description of the “essence” of hermeneutics, and about whether or not teaching experience is necessary for philosophers who grapple with truth(s) of art and education. This latter question was one I did not have a chance to respond to in class, so I’ll respond here: this is a well-worn question across many philosophical disciplines, and there is no easy answer. On some accounts teaching experience is a hindrance, but on most it is an asset. Essential? Let’s not go that far. Valuable? YOU BET.

I’m not sure the philosophy-as-history angle was a useful hermeneutic, but it did allow for an important central argument: that philosophy is a tradition with which art educators must grapple. I hope it was interesting enough for these students to latch onto, and hope for feedback in the future. I’d like to keep working on this set of ideas, and a short lecture is an interesting (if challenging) format.

The students appeared to have engaging discussions about four elements of a “Deweyan Philosophy of Education” I put forward: Context, Definition, Interpretation, and Excellence. I hope they are able to continue to speak back to these four deeply philsophical themes in the future.

Thanks to the students for their energy!