Arranjar (verb): to get; to find; to fix; to repair; to mend; to came up with; to make up; to come up with; to make up; to cause; to tidy up; to get straight; to arrange; to sort; to put straight; to adjust; to do; to get done; work out.

Infopedia. Portuguese-English Dictionary. Arranjar. Available: http://www.infopedia.pt/portugues-ingles/Arranjar. Last accessed May 2013.

From today onwards this is my designer business card. Graphic designer who arranja problems, there are no doubts or surprises, I don’t cheat on anyone.

When compared to a card of a designer who arranja problems, solves problems and finds the solutions, I warn you that I am more a specialist in arranjar problems than actually solving them with miraculous equations. Especially because I don’t like equations and I don’t like to keep solving things in the same way. There is another problem which I like to arranjar: to complicate things.
Another problem? I read far too many novels, I fantasy too much, to satisfy myself with a controlled and resigned life. In my life there is also my work, I can’t and I have never known how to separate things. Another problem, they say! Another problem that I can’t arranjar.

Originally published in 19 February 2008 in the blog “Isto não é uma Tese”. [link]

Interview via skype at 12am on 13 December 2012

It seems that nowadays the definition of Design has been expanded to areas that once seemed beyond the purview of Design. By moving away from idealized concepts, and towards the complex reality of behavior, Design has achieved not only a relational form but also transdisciplinarity. Since nowadays boundaries seem to be more waterlike, how can you define different kinds of Design practise? Is it a set of skills? Background? Context?

I didn’t know how to answer that question so I looked at ‘Forms of Enquiry’ exhibition when they explored the links between Architecture and Design. To curate this exhibition they had to classify what design is and different types of Design, so they came up with a quite relevant classification. The first was how the designer interacts with the given space which can be the space of a book, exhibition or any environment. The second was the mode of production, when the designer actually becomes, or has, a really important role in the production line, when he either becomes a publisher, an editor, a writer or even a curator. And the last classification was methodology; what they called ‘graphic design as a way of working’, so using design to work collaboratively, to think about theoretical texts or conceive interventions in a special space. I think it is quite an interesting perspective because it defines the interface, production and methodology which is something interesting to start with.

Collaboration can perhaps be perceived as something socialist in the sense that it requires the understanding of the user. Do you think that by trying to make design more aware of society’s needs we are in a phase of a new understanding of the designer’s role also?

You said that collaboration can be perceived as something socialist but I would say that it has more to do with politics.

When you are working within a group the first questions that arise are hierarchy, decision, power, and you need to define the rules. Who gets to decide? What happens if one person doesn’t agree? Do you need a referendum? Do you need a consensus? If one person doesn’t agree it means that no one should do anything, or do you need to have a majority? All these questions are really the basis of a political system where more than one person has to make decisions. In that sense working in a collaborative group is more political than socialist.

And in regards to people that are outside the studio. The collaboration with the client or audience for example.

It obviously depends on the client or project but most of the time you don’t really collaborate. One thing that I find important is the question of timing. For example, if you are called at the last minute to design a catalogue for an exhibition you don’t have a lot of time and power to change things, you are not really involved in the decision making.

However, if they decided to hire a designer beforehand and allow the designer to actually choose the photographer that they want to work with, the way that they want to document, choose the way that they want to archive something — in that way the relationship is completely transformed. This still might not be necessarily a collaboration with the client, he doesn’t need to understand all the concepts and the role you need to take as a designer, but having the designer in the very beginning of all the questions — as how to write the book, how to photograph, how we are going to print it, budget we need to allocate— that would be a much more interesting way of working together because you get to decide and think about [the project] with them and in that sense this would be closed to collaboration.

In the first issue of Bulletins of The Serving a Library, Dexter Sinister came up with a new idea for a foundation course proposing that the Bauhaus method is outdated. Do you share its opinion?

I think the Bauhaus method was conceived within a special context so it obviously responded to their time. While I was a student at the Royal College of Art, the school direction changed and they were trying to find a new head for the Communication Department. After a lot of interviews they chose five finalists. These finalists had then to present their proposal, first to the students, and then to a special board. Will Holder was one of the finalists and he arrived with a letter to the Rector, and he wrote as he does, very performative. In the lecture of the presentation he proposed to make two sabbath years with no course, no teacher and just to have workshops for inviting people from all over the world. With it, the RCA could then define actually what’s really needed in a MA.

Obviously he didn’t get the job but I think that it was more a statement, I don’t think he was hoping to getting it but perhaps it would be interesting to reproduce that letter. I think by taking over the rules, the systems and everything, it would help us to understand what the industry and the people really need and think. It would be amazing if it could happen somewhere.

Nowadays it has been common for young designers to initiate their own projects. Some of them seem to be successful enough to mold their practice in order to have an audience instead of a client. What’s your thoughts on self-initiated projects?

I think it is really important that we are in charge, and that our Design has a voice. I think we need to be responsible of the content that we want to share. Self-initiated projects are really important to define who you are. The projects that you do on the side are actually feeding your own practice. If it is the curation of an exhibition, a magazine that you want to publish every six months, these are ways to also force you to understand what you are interested in and share it with others, and becoming a statement of who you are. For me it is quite important for every critical designer to initiate their own projects and that’s something that is common here in London, it seems easy to do it, I don’t know why—it’s an energy, a simplicity.

Do you think that by doing self-initiated projects this could also target the clients that you want to work with?

Exactly. The best way to meet people, and bring together people that you care about or find interest in is to actually produce your own project. It is also again this question of relationship and hierarchy, if you for example organize an event and you invite someone that you are really fond of— because you invite and you propose an interesting context to your meeting or encounter— it means that you are on the same level somehow and it’s quite interesting and important to start a relationship in a kind of fair level. Obviously all of those events that you organize will bring people that are interested in the same things as you, so it’s good to build a network of friends or even possible clients. I would say that the best way to find a job is to actually create your own.

In a transcript of a dialogue about Redesigning (Graphic) Design Education workshop available for download on Martinez & Trees studio website, Joshua Trees says that by creating pathways in school the negative side to it is the overspecialisation and the positive side being the sense of community.
However don’t you think that right now the sense of community is more likely to happen in a transdisciplinary environment like Department 21? What’s your current position on this theme?

I actually think that creating pathways you are not over specialising yourself you are blocking your practise and what you would be capable of. I think the problem is in how collaborative projects are organized by school. They are usually in a very specific context and outcome-driven and that was something that we were trying to fight with the Department 21. In that way what we tried to do was to reconfigure a kind of collaboration that will arise by working close to each other and not proposing any specific direction, client or project. By working close to a sculptor or a painter you then realise that you have working methods in common and more important, interests in common. So we were trying to rethink what collaboration is based on.

One of the answers that we found was that to make it happen we need a space and that’s why it is called Department 21, because there is 20 departments but none was interdisciplinary. Department 21 was then this unique department where everyone could work surrounded by different practices.

In the article “Interdisciplinarity” by Bianca Elzenbaumer, Polly Hunter and Stephen Knott, in the Department 21 book, wrote that a postgraduate level of study should be about how the one specialisation fits in the wider context. How did Department 21 informed and positioned your practise today?

One of the first rules of Department 21 was that it only happens if someone was doing something about it and if you are not doing anything, nothing is happening. The focus was in the responsibility that you have as a student which is taking part of your learning process, being active. The two years that I was involved in the Department 21 really influenced the way I now think about Design. To make things happen you need to provoke them, you need to be active, so I would say that responsibility is very important. I believe that you are responsible of your own career, your own future, the people you are meeting; and being pro-active, doing things all the time, going to talks and organizing them, it is really, for me, what I learned from Department 21. And also, that it is not that difficult to make things happen. We, for example, had no money, we only had an interesting project. We were calling and asking amazing artists or curators to come in and give a talk for free, because we didn’t have money, and it happened just because the project was interesting for them and it was a good project that they wanted to contribute. It is actually simple to create a community when you have a good project.

In “QUESTIONS/QUESTIONS” you and your group mention “working alone but as a group”. Could you explain what you mean by this and how does it work for you?

That was the project that we decided to do for the final show at the RCA and it was called Table of Contents. We had a quote of Brian Gillick that says: “The them and us is me and us and us and us and them and them”; I believe this reflects our interest for open-relationship and, more importantly, the context in which we were producing things: we were students at the time in a specific area, which was the RCA, and in a specific context, which were the dates, the year and the people that we were surrounded by. And that context and the people you meet actually really defined what we were doing. We were really interested in creating a specific context for it to happen and to also talk about the content we dealt with for two years. We had also a quote from a text by Celine Condorelli that says “One way of addressing the question of how to live together is through what we may or may not have in common. (…)”. In that same text she also talks about the context, the common, established relationship and ownership in the everyday life. We were really interested in creating that group to present ourselves as part of the context, as part of the continuum practise. In that way, we ended up doing what we were doing because we met each other, we collaborate on things so we wanted to credit what we did as part of a working group, that again is part of a relationship.

Was it a kind of critique to the way that the work is presented in the graduation show and in Graphic Design exhibitions itself?

Yes, in the article on Question/Questions you have that first paragraph which was sent by the head of communications department saying that kind of be ready with your business cards, smile, have questions, be ready and things like that.

Very business like.

Yes. And the first thing we did was really trying to think in the way you present yourself in a final show. Everyone was making a big deal out of it, since you were supposed to be ready and get the job of your life and amazing people were supposed to come… But we all knew that we were not looking for a job. We all knew that we wanted to be self-employed, and we also wanted to do a project that would be our own statement about education. Specially because we really disagreed with Neville Brody’s view on education, who was appointed as the Head of the Department.

We also wanted to make a statement saying that we were not advertising ourselves as business opportunities. We just wanted to think about the context where we were evolving, and the best thing we found was to actually put what we produced in those two years in context and relation with other things: like references, movies, books, articles. Basically, what you do in your special time, what you do as part of your graduate show is actually part of all the things you read and all the people that you encountered… so we wanted to credit all those things. Giving a context to what you do. And it’s the same for you. For example you are not doing it just to “hey, let’s think about collaboration, hey, let’s think about economy in self-publishing” you are also aware of these questions, you have read texts and people have helped you formulating your thinking now. So it’s important that they are credited on a bibliography — and that’s what we had; we had a giant bibliography with films. However, no one understood it and the press came in and was confused because they thought it was a bookshop; and obviously the text we wrote was not precise and completely broad, so even the Head of the Department got confused about what it was.

We were only five and obviously we had a lot of space— so actually having a room for ourselves was problematic because it became this huge structure in a dead empty room and they didn’t know what to do with it but it worked. It worked because I’m talking about it with you and because we talked about it in different books so maybe it might not have worked immediately, because no one understood it except for course people that were in the same kind of mind-frame or with the same questions as us. But it was really, really funny to see the press and people being completely lost with what it was and not mentioning it because it was something they didn’t understand.

I agree with you, I think most of the people go to graduation exhibitions to see “nice things”.

People come to a show looking for trends or “innovations”, always new trends, innovation, typefaces, something new; but we were actually the only ones that produced something new for the exhibition. We produced a structure, a context and some content. Other people only displayed the work that they had done in the past, and one of our questions was to produce something specially for the exhibition, and not to only display something that belonged to the past, so it was quite funny. But the question is: when you have a show try to force yourself to produce new things – it’s really important.

It also goes back to the question of production and I think we should think about exhibitions, events, diploma graduations as a mean to produce something new for you. If all the shows displayed new things — if all shows in Graphic Design had a budget for production rather than framing, rather than printing a book, but actually to allow students or designers to produce a new work — that would be really amazing because it is giving a budget or money to help people produce things that it is not for a client, but can be for something more experimental, production, tools…; and that’s something that I try to make it happen with my exhibitions. When I have budget to produce things, the exhibition doesn’t look at what happened in the past but actually looks forward to the future and allows things to happen, because one part of the production budget is allocated to designers: for them to think about a question, or something — and that’s really important.

This initiative was part of Run Studio Run, a pilot project of the college that aimed to create a closer relationship between nearly graduate students, and some of the design studios and professionals operating in Lisbon.

The goal of this particular activity was to go further than merely organizing a retrospective of Marco Balesteros’ personal work, so it was proposed a challenge that involved the students in a more active way, allowing them to take part of the definition of the project itself, instead of being only participants.

The idea of Portable School sums itself in a collection of a few notions previously explored by artists, intellectuals, academics and pedagogues: Stewart Brand, Nam June Paik, RaoulVaneigem, Buckminster Fuller, Dexter Sinister, Agostinho da Silva, Loris Malaguzzi, Fernando Lanhas, Ivan Illich, etc. It is an informal space, self-organized, where the sharing of knowledge and information acts as one of the most important aspects. It explores new ways of thinking and acting in the learning and teaching fields. As students/ participants, our role on this workshop was to take these ideas previously studied, and find a way to materialize them.

Upon our first meeting, we made a first reflection about the proposal. We end up with a role of possibilities to the activity program and ways of exploration.This was helpful, even if it turned out nothing like it was originally planned.We were setting the workshop in motion.

After this first approach to the project, the challenge was to define a less complex program. With this necessity of simplification we reached our main goal/lesson: “Learn to unlearn/Learn by unlearning”.This lesson turned out being one of the main statements of the project, because it allowed us to move away from more rigid ways of work and think, and gave us the freedom we needed to fully understand what this new notion of school was.

We resumed our ideas and reflections in a list of six basic but essential elements of school Teacher/ Student, Classroom, Class, Means, Break and Schedule – that defined the structure of the program, and its principles.

The project aims to propose a personal (re)definition of these terms, a new vision of the idea of school that pretends to be shared and further studied. It ended up as developing a specific methodology and bringing together our own set of references and questions about the theme. In the end this was Portable School’s main proposal: the students make the school, the students decide how to learn and how to work, and so we did.

The workshop finally was presented in an exhibition. This space was the combination of objects (all of them found around the college) which, with a certain scenic spirit, were visual metaphors of Portable School’s program and principles. Our research was also compiled in six small publications/manuals, each of them devoted to one of the six elements/main points of the program.

IMG 1 : Rikrit Tiravanija’s Thai food at 303 Gallery in 1992 (image from t)

In the article“Part of the Process”[8] by Monika Parriender and Colin Davies, they attempt to appraise certain graphic design projects with direct application of Nicolas Bourriaud’s Relational Aesthetics discussion and combined this concept into the design practice, while Andrew Blauvelt’s “Towards Relational Design” views the word “relational” more as contextual nomination for a certain design practice rather than a term for specific social or interactive design outcomes, and also avoids getting into art related principles by making comparisons with Design history, but yet choosing this word —relational— loaded with meaning to name this new hypothetical movement. Is the term “Relational Design” misrepresenting Blauvelt’s analysis of this kind of design practice?
But isn’t in a way all design relational? For Europa “…any piece of work has an intrinsic relationship with the spectator as a result of their interpretation of it.”. By producing effects, some small, some large and because of its social intentions, all forms of design are then relational. Duchamp also described this relationship in Creative Act (1957)[]: “The creative act is not performed by the artist alone, the spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering and interpreting its inner qualification and this adds his contribution to the creative act.” Here, the act of looking and interpreting the piece makes the spectator just as active as a physical interaction with the artwork, leading us to the point that all design is inherently relational whether you are conscious of it or not.
However what is different in this phase of design is the primary role that has been given to areas that once seemed beyond the purview of design form and content equation. Giving the design not only a relational form but also transdisciplinary, by moving away from the idealized concepts, and towards the complex reality of behavior.
So if all design is relational, it is also conceptual. At first glance, all design is conceptual in the sense that it depends on the conceptualization of problems and solutions. But for example when reflecting into the work of studios like Europa and Åbäke, which often make references to details found in research undertaken for the project, we might say that the final form is a product of the process, and therefore it is more conceptual.
Ryan Garden shared this same point of view in conversation with Alex Coles. He says “…good designers go into a project open and generate something that interprets the specific situation they are in (…) they take a long time trying to understand the situation before they design anything.” and later says “…they are conceptualists. They instigate things and it doesn’t really matter what area it’s in. (…) it doesn’t matter which because it’s about generating ideas and proposing problems and solving them.” [9]
Perhaps more than a new movement, this is a phase of a new understanding of the designer’s role. Norman Potter makes this clear in his description of a designer [10]: in this book, the author compares the practise of a designer to that of a doctor, both with responsibility for an accurate diagnostic (problem analysis) and for relevant prescription (design proposals). By making this analogy, Potter stresses that the role of the designer is to essentially operate through and for other people illustrating how interpersonal relationships, collaboration and transdisciplinarity are important to the design process and how the process of design is in some ways an intrinsically social and relational act and therefore important for society.
In summary, in the first phase of design, there was no reader, in the second, the author died in favour of the birth of the reader and in the current phase, and according to Blauvelt, the viewer is taking an active part in the design process. However this new phase is not only resumed to participation of the user into the design process. This is a new understanding of the role of design within society, as referred in Potter’s book. The work of the designer is to become more aware of society’s needs. That’s why many designers currently require a transdisciplinary and collaborative studio model to deal with these new institutional conditions and opportunities. This studio model is not confined by disciplinary boundaries and can lead to a form of practise where issues are explored and rigorously tested in an open ended format rather than a closed system.

[1] See project Turner Prize Twitter Wall (2010) by A Practise for Everyday Life in collaboration with Hellicar&Lewis (http://vimeo.com/26914004), as an example.
[2] Blauvelt, A, 2011. Towards Relational Design / Para um Design Relacional. PLI, 1, 7 to 13.
[3] Oosterling, H. (2009) Dasein as Design Or: Must Design Save the World? [PDF]. Available from :<http://www.premsela.org/sbeos/doc/file.php?nid=1673> Last accessed December 2012.
[4] Eco, U (1962). The Open Work. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
[5] Barthes, R. (1967) The Death of Author. [Internet Article]. Available from: <http://www.ubu.com/aspen/aspen5and6/threeEssays.html#barthes> [Accessed 16 October 2012].
[6] Rock, M. (1996) The Designer as Author. [Internet Article]. Available from: <http://www.eyemagazine.com/feature/article/the-designer-as-author> [Accessed 16 October 2012].
[7] Rick, P. (2009) Observer: Strained Relation. [Internet Article]. Available from: <http://www.printmag.com/article/observer_strained_relations/> [Accessed 16 October 2012].
[8] Parriender, M & Davies, C. (2006) Part of the process. [Internet Article]. Available from: <http://www.eyemagazine.com/feature/article/part-of-the-process> [Accessed 16 October 2012].
[9] Coles, A (2012). The Transdisciplinary Studio. Berlin: Sternberg Press.
[10] Potter, N (2002). What Is a Designer: Things, Places, Messages. London: Hyphen Press.

Education in general —since it is a present that would respond to a future— has the need to be, like society itself, in constant mutation. Nowadays Art & Design Education seems to be stuck in repetition due to the strategies of standardisation and homogenisation that are overtaking educational institutions. This situation is generating a crisis on this sector asking for a period of self-reflection and revaluation. Today’s educational models are a reflection of models that responded well to the past but don’t fit as supposed to the contemporary society or design situation. By questioning how relevant is Education to both society and the individual we can maybe abstract a new and more relevant future for Design Education that would hold and reflect the contemporary reality.

There is a long history within Art & Design Education of artists and designers establishing alternative educational models in order to transfer their knowledge to a younger generation. Free Art schools have emerged since the 17th century because they perceived a gap between state run Art & Design Education and what artists and designers really needed. Bauhaus (from 1917 to 1933) in Germany is one of the most relevant examples. It reinterpreted the traditional notion of “artist as teacher” and “Art School” itself. The Bauhaus model, organized around the framework of Johannes Itten’s onion diagram, was obviously conceived in a special context, but nowadays it has been appropriated by state run Education around the world. In the United Kingdom the implementation of the Foundation Year or A Levels which break down disciplines and skills in components are a reflection of that appropriation. Darren Raven —course leader of the FdA Design for Graphic Communication course at London College of Communication— in a recent interview[1] affirms that most of the students that didn’t have that sort of “Bauhaus experience”, normally have less trouble with the complexity of a design project because, most of the times, they don’t overfocus on the craft. In that sense it might be sensible to think of a new educational model that doesn’t involve the Bauhaus framework.
Dexter Sinister[2] shares the opinion that this Bauhaus model is outdated and adds that the time it was conceived in couldn’t be more different to ours since, for example, nowadays the laptop is everyone’s common medium. Dexter Sinister proposes an alternative method for a foundation course reflecting the way of how lots of practices are jumping over disciplinary boundaries which obviously conflicts with the current Art & Design school model, inspired by Bauhaus.

Technical knowledge has become less relevant in Education today since it has become more accessible thanks to step-by-step tutorials that can be easily found online and offline. The University has then to get away from technical learning and become a place to exercise the mind where some skills are still involved but they are only there to help the student to prove the conceptual strength within a subject.
The Problem Based Learning (PBL) method, introduced by Derek Portwood and Carol Costley of Middlesex University on SEDA paper 109 (July 2000)[3], can be seen as an alternative system to address the current needs. It consists in having students at the centre of the learning process which occurs in small groups. Tutors would act more as facilitators or guides rather than teachers. This method forms the basis for an “organised chaos” that stimulates the development and use of students’ cognitive problem solving skills whilst generating new knowledge that is obtained through means of self-directed learning. This way, research not only becomes part of the educational background but also part of the design process, allowing students to not only develop technical skills but critical thinking as well. The one-to-one tutorial system is also deeply valuable for the individual student but since the learning takes place in a group most of the time their discussion could lead to more complex outcomes. However, PBL can also be problematic because projects are focused on wicked problems when there is not a correct way of doing or solving them. In that way it is difficult for the student to recognize his achievements or progression within a discipline which can un-motivate the student and also make the assessment more difficult. Another problem of PBL could also be that it could lead to transdisciplinary outcomes which make it difficult to be included in programmes that are focused on a specialisation or a path. In that context Darren Raven argues that because the elements of the group choose to sit on one discipline, being a disciplinary or transdisciplinary group, it is about what can they do as a group to solve that wicked problem. But this could also present a problem to the courses’ departments that have pathways and want to grow students into a certain type of ‘ready for the market’ since transdisciplinarity could be something that transcend the pathway.
Joshua Trees [4] argues that by creating pathways in school the negative side to it is the overspecialisation and the positive side the sense of community it allows for. On the other hand, Art & Design students are more oftenly adopting independent platforms outside of the curriculum (such as Department21) in order to achieve cross disciplinary and collaboration beyond the limitations of more traditional departmental structures. Sophie Demay [5](ex-member of Department21) argues that by “creating pathways you are not overspecialisation yourself but blocking your practise and what you would be capable of.”. The critic JJ Charlesworth in the article “Crisis at the ICA”[6] makes the point that cross-disciplinary requires the reality of disciplinary base for practice in the first instance which makes transdisciplinary Education in the undergraduate programs problematic. He argues that you need to be rooted into a discipline before you cross over it, otherwise cross-disciplinary is just hollow and general surface without a specific depth. However if you are in a context of a school and a discipline doing a project that might cross your discipline, your starting point is still your discipline. Polly Hunter, Stephen Knott and Bianca Elzenbaumer wrote, on the article ‘Interdisciplinarity’[7], that on a postgraduate level of study it should not be about specialism alone but about questioning the mechanisms of these specialism which is essential to see how the one specialisation fits in the wider context. On the other hand the way that Education is structured nowadays is about what can you do as individual whilst it should maybe be what can you, as an individual, contribute for a group of people or society in general.

New experimental methods, like Department 21[8], a interdisciplinary workspace established and run by students at RCA between January and February 2010, which continued as a community after the space was re-appropriated by the school, had created a challenging inclusive, radical and productive environment, as a space of transformation and of deconstruction, that might steer the RCA towards new models of Education. Based in the concrete process of peer-learning, Department 21 adopted a radical strategy towards a broader definition of Education, of practice and of cross-disciplinarity, and has created context for hybrid identities to develop, rooted in mutual support. In comparison the transdisciplinary and collaborative projects proposed by the school are always outcome driven, client based and with a very specific route, but one of the particularities of Deparment 21 is that collaboration happens without an outcome. Collaboration arises by working close to each other and happen spontaneously. Fay Nicolson and Carmen Billows on their article ‘Education’[9] argue that Department 21 was a ‘school within a school’ and by raising awareness and working towards the transgression of departmental borders, they were striving towards an ideal concept of Art & Design Education.

Independent, free Art schools (like the Bauhaus in their time) tend to be more successful, in part due to their short duration, which prevents them from becoming outdated like the institutions they criticise which are often pressured by regulational models established by government. What makes these educational models and workshops outside the state run environment more successful is that they are often populated by people that really want to be there, when inside the state run environment some of them could be there only to became the model of the individual established by society standards. However, if alternative Art schools manage to maintain their progressive utopianism in the long term, they could continue to provide important frameworks for playful research and experimentation. In that sense, by offering an alternative to the established model of Education and safe realm for experimentation, these alternative and independent platforms have been valuable contributions to the current and ongoing debate surrounding Art & Design Education.

There might not be a solution for the current crisis in Art & Design Education; but one way to start constructing it could be the re-design of a new way of educating. Will Holder, under the recent “call” for a new head of department for the Communication Design course at the RCA, as a result of the change of the administration of the institution, attempted to do so. His application was a proposal to make two sabbath years with no course, no teachers and with only workshops for two years in order to define what is actually needed in terms of Education nowadays. However utopian this idea might be, due to the complex logistic system of large institutions (which independent schools don’t have), Art & Design Education is in desperate need for change that locates the focus on the students and their positioning within current practice.

[1] Sa Fernandes, E. (2010). In conversation with Darren Raven. In: Sa Fernandes, E. The Collaborative Studio. London: 2013. (Un-published)
[2] Sinister, D. (2011). From the Toolbox of a Serving Library. In: Sinister, D Bulletins of The Serving Library #1. Berlin: Sternberg Press. p94-96.
[3] Portwood, D and Costley, C. (2000) The Problem Based Learning (PBL). Middlesex University (SEDA) Paper 109.
[4] Carrea, A; Edmondson, N; Kambi, M; Martinez, Y; Matinvesi, E and Trees, J. (2012). R[G]DE – Fail to redesign graphic design education. Available: http://www.martineztrees.com/files/downloads/rgde_transcript.pdf. Last accessed May 2013.
[5] Sa Fernandes, E. (2010). In conversation with Sophie Demay. In: Sa Fernandes, E. The Collaborative Studio. London: 2013. (Un-published)
[6] Mute Magazine, February 2010
[7] Hunter, P; Knott, S and Elzenbaumer, B. (2010). Interdisciplinarity. In: Hunter, P; Elzenbaumer, B and Franz, F. Department 21. London: 2010.
[8] Department 21 (Royal College of Art, 2009-2011)
[9] Nicolson, F and Billows, C. (2010). Education. In: Hunter, P; Elzenbaumer, B and Franz, F. Department 21. London: 2010.

In his essay Research and Destroy, Daniel van der Velden[1], introduces a statement from Annette Nijs[2] the cultural spokesperson for the VVD. She wrote “We are making a turn, away from the assembly line to the laboratory and the design studios…” on a study by the TNO (Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research) that states that nowadays the major portion of economic growth derives from design. Following this observation by Annette Nijs, van der Velden questions if the designer can be a successor of the factory worker and still encompasss the strategic aptitude they hold in the meeting rooms? He writes: “Is a designer someone who thinks up ideas, designs, produces, and sells, or someone who holds a mouse and drags objects across a computer screen?”

This observation couldn’t be a better introduction to the workshop that we prepared as part of this project (and more specifically as part of the exploration of Division of a Labour as one of the themes). In these series of two workshops (MoP I & II) we used methodologies of production based on manufacture production models developed by Ford and Toyota. We see that these two models could be used as metaphors of two different kinds of practice within the industry of Graphic Design.
The first one, Ford, can be easily associated with the culture of a Design agency or the overall relation between different specialized sectors of industry. This system is defined by the independence of each station, allowing for specialization of the workers who are invited to co-operate between them and other stations, but focusing solely on their one task. This is reflected in the Graphic Design industry within big design agencies where the designer is seen as “someone who holds a mouse and drags objects across a computer screen…”. In this framework the creative and strategic side is taken over by communication managers, marketing experts, art directors and design managers which engage on behalf of the client to direct the design process. A big part of the design decisions are therefore made by people outside of the design “sector”.
In comparison, the second model, Toyota also known as the “Just-in-time” model, is much more fluid than the Ford Model as it allows for participants to adapt to either co-operate and/or collaborative systems, having the freedom to be part of more than one assignment. This model was designed to be responsive and flexible and is a perfect metaphor for the small design studio where the designer can engage in more than one activity. Often the small design studio also engages in self-initiated projects as part of their practice, which allows for the exploring of other disciplines in the process. It is subjective which one works best but the workshops reflect that the groups that worked in Toyota’s framework have much sense of ownership and pride on the final outcome.
Nowadays, within professional practise of design, one spends only a small portion of time actually ‘designing’, while the rest of it is spent on phone calls, reading, meetings, making mockups, thinking, discussing… the so called administrative, organizational work. Some might not agree but all of this ‘non-design’ activities are also inherent and crucial part of the design process. In a big design agency, it’s obvious that these activities are not held by the designer himself but normally taken over by, for example, project managers or art directors who then work on the behalf of the client to guide the designer in the same strategic perspective, and making his work on the same level of that of a factory worker. If these administrative activities are seen as crucial in the design process, then other intellectual and non aesthetic-driven activities like writing, editing, curating, can also be logically accommodated within the definition of ‘design’ and perhaps lead us to a wider idea of design process in itself.

[1] van der Velden, D. (2011). Research and Destroy: Desogm as Omvestogatopm. In: Blauvelt, A and Lupton E Graphic Design: Now in Production. Minneapolis: Walker Art Center. p16-18. (Originally published in Metropolis M 2, April/May 2006.)

[2] NRC Handelsbled, 9 February 2006

These are the answers that we received so far. (Last update: 26 May 2013)

Catalogue (Leeds, UK)

Don’t forget localism and self production.

Centre d’estudis Macba is a proposal of re-definition of the Centro de Estudios y Documentación del Museo de Arte Contemporáneo de Barcelona’s lobby. The project is originated by the change of the exhibition hall into an activity room by proposing interactive and horizontal activities, going for the digitalization and accessibility of the archive and the communication channels. Furthermore, a Community platform is offered to a collaborative design of the furniture for future activities. The centre’s communication is based on the ambiguity of space and in the numerous activities than can converge resulting in a useful graphic system to inform about the type of activities, as well as where and when to find them. This project was made within an interdisciplinary team formed by Jessica Escanellas, Joan Marc Ferret, Raul Haro and Amadeu Ventayol.

Last June we were invited to set up a workshop to shape all the content generated during the Arquitectures de la dignitat days. As a result, we share all this content on the net using differents platforms like Xhamster or Fotolog.

Video screening at BYOB BCN. The animation plays with the idea of an archive to find thirteen words, internet therms, which are not accepted by the RAE (Real Academia Española).

The artist Lua Coderch asked us to design the new vinyl cover of her sonor landscape piece. At least we don’t work on any cover, but we decide to print a poster and upload all the process information on a GoogleMaps.

Ignasi Prat analyzes and shoots some Francoist higuer-up’s homes. We worked on a site wich follows the artist’s logics and steps.

We print a postcards for the presentation of the project with the death certificates of the dictator Franco and his crew.

Cas d’estudi was a exhibition about language and academic processes in artistic practices. We design and produce all the stuff with the center resources.

Single stories — The Netherlands and Portugal

In 1579, some provinces located in the north of France decided to unite in order to protect each other in the war against the regency of the kings of Spain. Two years later they signed a treaty which was the origin of what we know today as the Netherlands. The war against Spain was only the first step in the creation of a nation. As the country is geographically situated below sea level (which makes floods constant and agriculture impracticable), there was a need to build dikes, artificial mountains and dams[1]. Motivated by the distinct origins of its people, the Netherlands were also innovative in terms of religious tolerance, passing legislation in favor of freedom of choice and multi-religiosity. In a more recent context, the migrations of the 20^th century brought a substantial number of individuals, mainly from Turkey, north of Africa and Asia, to immigrate to the Netherlands. What could be an uncomfortable situation for the locals, made the country pioneer in integration[2].

There are only a few countries in the world where the society is based on similar values. Compared to other countries, the people of the Netherlands has had the opportunity to experience very distinct situations, to listen to multiple sides of a story and thus, formulate various viewpoints. The Dutch citizens have been educated in an environment of tolerance, learning to accept difference and live in unity. Is reason to believe that this historical basis of the Netherlands, has allowed the country, in this century, to become pioneer in matters of individual freedom, such as being the first nation to accept marriage between individuals of the same sex, to liberalize the use of soft drugs or to decriminalize prostitution, continuously developing a tolerant mentality in the citizens.

In terms of design practice, the country has some of the best professionals in this area. The Dutch architecture and design are a reference in the whole world, due to the visual simplicity and clarity but also due to the creativity, synonyms of distinct, bold and often surprising ideas. In its core there is also a strong social component, which reflects the strong link between designers/architects and their basis, the people, towards a collective development. The relation design/citizen takes up a singular mutualism, due, in one hand, to the freedom, tolerance and acceptance that the designer’s work faces on a consciously open society, and in the other, to the contribution that it provides to the community through an activity devoted for people.

I believe the process (more than the outcome) in which countries are built, has extreme importance in the creation of a collective conscience. After all, what we call “country” is basically the aggregation of all the citizens, and all the connections that they establish between themselves and with the institutions. The Netherlands have roughly the same size and number of inhabitants as Portugal, however they are very different. I think some of the current problems in Portugal, can be explained by historical factors involving the construction of the country and the way (the process) in which the mind of the Portuguese people has been molded. Unlike the inhabitants of the Netherlands, the Portuguese have had limited access to other ways of being in the world. This situation may be due to a geographical isolation but also because of distant relations with their only neighbour, Spain. This (ideological) isolation is reinforced through the conversion (or eviction) upon the confrontation with different ideals, as was the case of the Sephardic Jews, and is still reflected in the constant need for the preservation of past traditions and achievements. Although the existence of a sense of moderation on the part of the Portuguese is not questioned, everything suggests that tolerance is not a part of the culture and  education of individuals, which prevents Portugal from reaching a point of social openness that motivates quick and valuable changes for the common good.

Therefore I believe the Portuguese design and architecture should play an important role in this difficult task of the changing of consciences. However, not most of the designers, institutions or population, have yet realized the power of transformation that can be found in design. Take for example the way the word design continues being used in Portugal, as an adjective, referring to a particular aesthetics or drawing (desenho) ability of a certain piece, rather than being used as a verb referring to making, planning, implementing. As long as it continues to be only a finalizing tool of a longer process, the designer’s role in “telling the story” will always be limited. In order to have an actual influence role in the construction of that story, the participation of the designer will have to arise in an initial part of the process. In Portugal there are a series of several internationally renowned personalities, in architecture and design—although in a much lower number than in the Netherlands—, who might lead and encourage the introduction of design thinking, that will become useful to people. This awareness, by itself, won’t generate more tolerance, however, maybe a long exposure to those same methods might establish different habits, strengthening the mutual relation between designer and citizen which has diversity as its core point, leading to social openness.

—

[1] Betsky, Aaron with Eeuwens, Adam (2008). False Flat: Why Dutch Design is So Good. England: Phaidon.

[2] This essay doesn’t take into consideration the recent anti-multiculturalism restraints of the Dutch government because they don’t represent a centennial position of the country in this subject.

—

November 2012
Rui Moreira
Translated by Eurico Sá Fernandes
Proofreading by Carmo Fernandes and Maria José Rodrigues

This ever growing technological world has changed the way we consume information and has changed the technological and social demands of today. Participation and interaction are playing an important role in society today, reflecting on the relation Design and Designers within society. According to Andrew Blauvelt’s critical observations on graphic design we are in the third phase of design history “an era of relationally-based, contextually specific design” [2] where the work of the designer is gradually becoming more open-ended, interactive and user-centred. In this era design and designers gradually became more detached from form and function, and are more focused in applying “Design Thinking” to the “Design Problem”. These factors led to the emergence of a new discipline, Social Design, that hadn’t yet declared independence from other forms of design.

According to the Design Thinking Book [3], “Design Thinking deals with traditional business problems under multiple perspective, helping to solve them in a more effective way, leading to new paths”. In this sense, Design Thinking pretends to solve not a design problem, but a business one.  The authors refer that innovation is a key aspect that designers must offer in order to successfully address the problem and allow for their client to progress at the same time — “Innovating is a hard task and generally frustrating, but it is essential to be unique in the market”.

This idea that innovation is essential for progress led us to ask ourselves: what is innovation? Nowadays we tend to call ‘innovation” to the concept of increasing  growth and well-being, mostly associated with big corporations that everyday present us with a brand-new innovative product; a product that most of the times has poor technological improvement and has only became “innovative” by design. The product pretends to improve people’s lives under the conception of being “innovative” but the true intention is, most of the time, the profitability of the product to these corporations.

Design has so become a tool for “camouflaged innovation”. The product is intended to be an improved copy of a previous with a different —”innovative”— design. Recently a couple of initiatives, like the FastCompany “Innovation by Design Awards”, support the idea of innovation for profit, supporting the idea that innovation lies in profit-making and not in cultural, artistic or political progress. Instead of channelling this effort on the setting of more cooperative and collaborative systems, where designers can detach from the market and be more autonomous in their practice. Here, the innovative idea is presented to a board of judges/investors that award the work/idea based on the profitability and financial viability.

These initiatives for the defence of innovation in Design seem to follow the Design Council’s recent investment. According to the Design Council [4] for every £1 invested in design a businesses can expect over £4 in net profit, which reflects the mentality of perceiving Design as a mine for business and market exploration instead of social awareness and/or artistic expression.

We wanted to see how designers across industry perceived this concept of “innovation” and see if they find it relevant to their practice. We will be exploring how this concept of profitability, and even employability, that has been haunting Design work in recent years.

—

[1] Van Mensvoort, K, 2010. Razorious Gilletus – Confessions of a Sucker for Innovation. Design Mass, Published by Onomatopee.

[2] Blauvelt, A, 2011. Towards Relational Design / Para um Design Relacional. PLI, 1, 7 to 13.

[3] www.designthinkingbook.co.uk

[4] Design delivers for business, Design Coucil 2013