The curricula of Uni Brighton & KCAI are good case examples of this dichotomy. It seems that the American school system is centered around "holding your hand" every step of the way, guiding students through their ideas through conventions like interim crits, and requirements for brainstorming. The British school system, on the other hand, is much more about being open to whatever. This complete lack of structure arguably allows for much more informal play. It allows for students to develop their own formal compass, and establish a precedence for their own quality of work -- an attribute that I think all student designers will desperately need in the professional world, having to answer to superiors, justify their own decisions and content, and "know when to stop." There won't always be a professor to hold your hand, to make you do 50 thumbnails before being done, and then giving you 10 interim meetings, telling you what works and what doesn't. A student must learn how to assess their own work, and work until they are satisfied. When a teacher assigns 50 thumbnails, the student's mind is all on that 50. As they finish the 30th thumbnail, they're thinking they have 20 left to go. Its about the destination, not the journey. Instead, professors, (i think) should be challenging students to work until they're satisfied with their ideas. Until they're confident they've created a good solution. Above all of this, I believe that work ethic is a self-determined behavior. It is something that you can force, train, even condition, but I believe it is tied to a person's commitment to a given subject or project, and their own assessment of their ability. So, in assigning those 50 thumbnails, the student is thinking of quantity, and reverts to this idea of design as work, as labor. Not play. Brainstorming should be about play, about quick, reflexive ideas. About having fun, not about drudging through requirements.
The formalism of KCAI almost suspends this sense of play entirely. Things like required statements, intensely formal critiques, process books, and thumbnails, create an extremely narrow-minded environment to work in. Everyone works on the computer not only because there isn't much time to think of other options, but also because its the status quo. At Uni. Brighton, there is a huge emphasis on creating work outside the computer, on thinking with your hands, and constructing installations, making prints, doings paintings and illustrations, making weavings, cross-stitches, videos, animations, sculptures to express the idea. I feel as though Im using the computer as a crutch. Because of the narrow scope of my thinking at KCAI, I feel behind -- like most of my ideas involve the same work process: sketch. rough it out on the computer. execute. refine. finish. It's so scientific! So formal! So CONTROLLED! Design is not this. As I've said before I believe that its about having fun and learning from your own mistakes on your own terms. Then, as you become more emotionally involved in your OWN ideas, your standards for your work evolve. I think this is how real learning happens. You have to make it personal, that gives a student an emotional investment in their own work.
So I had my first real crit here. It went really well. I have to say, thanks to Michael Kidwell, who taught me (despite my moaning) to have a close and careful eye for typography. Essentially, that's what the project was about. We were to design a a magazine spread (cover, double page spread, back) about a particular font.
One of the first things I noticed about the crit was how chilled it was. We sat on couches in the corner of the studio, the teachers sitting with us, and we informally talked about our work & ideas. It was refreshing because it felt a lot more like a discussion. There were no requirements as to how much any student had to say. People just said what was on their mind, and it was generally good. While on the subject I have to mention a huge beef I have with KCAI: professors marking during crits how much a person speaks. Not only does it create awkward situations, but I think it goes completely against the idea of feeling comfortable during crit to express yourself. You're being judged even when you're not being judged. And, in attempting to reach their quota and get their participation grade for class, some students just say random things that may or may not pertain to the conversation at hand, or are just completely invalid. What works about Brighton is that these things are not monitored, so when a person has something to say they do, and when they don't have something to say, they don't. It sounds funny, but the motivation to speak in order to satisfy a requirement really distorts the whole purpose: to have a meaningful conversation about the work. A worthwhile critique, I think, is one where everyone feels comfortable, where it isn't awkward because of ridiculous requirements. To some extent, the formalism of the institution makes it incredibly awkward back home. That, and the professors don't do much to help. I've really enjoyed how informal, personal, and meaningful this crit was. I will say though -- the tutors spoke much more than the students, something that I miss about KCAI.
We get a new briefing tomorrow. The tutors gave us a sneak preview of what the project will be. Apparently it has to do with music (YES!!). We are to make a mix tape for a friend, and then trade mix tapes, and graphically translate the tape (...maybe). Or something along those lines. They were very vague, but I guess I'll find out tomorrow. It's encouraging to have briefs like this, that have real world implications and are open enough to generate slightly self-directed work. While I am beginning to miss the structure of KCAI, it's nice to begin to think about my place as a designer, and how I can distinguish my work from others.
Its late here, so that's it for now. I'll post again tomorrow once I find out the new brief.
No comments:
Post a Comment