Design MOOC


Course: Design Theory
Length: 6 weeks, 3-4 hrs/wk
School/platform: IsraelX/edx
Instructor: Various
Quote:

The first of its kind, this course is a pioneering exploration of theories of design theory. Much of the way we interact as a society springs from design and is influenced by it.
The course offers an in‐depth exposition of prime concepts in contemporary design theory. It looks to ask and answer questions such as: What is design? How is design related to the histories of culture, economics, and the arts? What is the role of design? What is the responsibility of the designer? What is creativity and how its use in design propels the development industry and technology? How is design related to contemporary markets and industries?

I have a notoriously hard time with courses that focus on creating visual presentations, either artistic or informational. So I approached this with some trepidation. But with a couple of exceptions, this isn’t a design course; it’s a philosophy course. In fact, the final wrap-up video used Paola Antonelli’s term “interior philosophers.” That’s fine by me.

The first lecture of each week tended to be very abstract and theoretical. As in:

However, formalism classifies design as primarily an aesthetic phenomenon. It considers design as part of the aesthetics domain of reality, which accordingly should be analyzed as such. The Design Object, according to formalist philosophy of design, is mainly an aesthetic object, whose essence is an aesthetic form. Its essence is its composition and appearance, the rightness of its structure, and the way its elements are combined and related to each other. In that respect, formalism is a materialist classification of design.

~~ Lecture, Week 1

Even though philosophy is, theoretically, my comfort zone, this required some parsing. As the week moved on and more concrete examples came into play, the first lecture of the week would become more relevant. I was often surprised – pleasantly! – at the directions some of the initial lectures took. Though I might not have been sure at a few points along the road, in the end I enjoyed this course. And I think I learned something – even though art, like math, often seems like something I just never quite understand.

Some highlights:

• An interview with Professor Yarom Vardimon on his earliest artistic influences, and his work on such projects as the 50th anniversary of Yad Vashem (how do you design a celebration that the word “anniversary” implies, with the events commemorated?) and a children’s hospital: colorful lights, toy shapes lining the corridors with names of donors, a bright and open entrance. Always present in his approach was his own experience.

 

• Design as a way of reinforcing, or challenging, social norms and expectations. This ranged from toys (which can restrict play to what is expected by the designer, and is reflected in the parent’s choice of the toy, or can allow creativity to use the toy in unexpected ways) to water bottles, which we evaluated on various criteria (turns out, I was on board with masculine and feminine, but I seem to have no idea what erotic, expensive, cheap, or comfortable look like).

 

• Design not only communicates from designer to user, but from user to society. Eyeglasses have become fashionable, conveying less of “something’s wrong with his eyes” to “wow, she must be smart” or “those glasses are awesome”; why not other assistive devices? Why can’t walkers and wheelchairs come in colors, to make them look like fun gizmos instead of something old people use? Prosthetic leg coverings are available in superhero styles; eye patches can be decorated.

 

• Harvard mathematician George David Birkhoff came up with ways to quantify aesthetics, both visual and linguistic. I have a lot of knee-jerk issues with this, but it’s an intriguing idea. For all our protestations that aesthetics is separate from rationality, it might not be quite so cut-and-dried (no, do NOT tell me about the golden mean and the Parthenon, I’ve been successfully inoculated against that by the best mathematicians around).

 

• Philosopher Walter Benjamin. What made this a highlight of the course was the purely coincidental and near-simultaneous appearance of a short story I was reading from the Pushcart Prize volume that rather overtly used Walter Benjamin’s aesthetic theories (and Hegel’s, though he didn’t show up in the course). There’s a reason I keep taking these courses. When I run across simulacra and grey-eyed goddesses in short stories, I have some idea what to make of them.

 
In addition to lecture videos, the course used a variety of participatory materials. Each week, a poll question started things off, a sort of priming mechanism that touched upon some aspect of the concepts to be covered. Short quizzes followed lecture sequences. Activities like the water bottle evaluation, and associated discussion questions, also contributed grades. The final week included a quiz that turned out to be a comprehensive final exam; I was a bit taken by surprise since it was embedded in the week 6 material (it was labeled “Final Exam” so I need to pay better attention). It was somewhat more difficult than the shorter weekly quizzes sometimes requiring making fine distinctions between elements of a theory, but once my pulse rate went down I found it to be an excellent summary of the material.

For me, the course was a great success. I was worried that, because I’m not in the field of design and am hampered by my art-blindness, I wasn’t “getting it”, but the final video, a casual discussion amongst three of the instructors, reassured me:

You know what I would like? That people who were finishing this class, this course, that maybe they go outside now to the world and start looking at those signs, and cars, and buildings, and spaces, and suddenly start thinking about what meaning they have in their lives, and how they are interacting with all these environments in a very interesting way, in a very intense way, something that maybe was a natural thing, transparent almost. It suddenly becomes more visible.
And more reliable. So also understanding that the objects that we use are not separate from us, and the technologies that we use are not separate from the way that we think of ourselves. And they actually in many ways construct our psychology and our self-perception as human beings, as we saw, and as individuals. So it’s extremely important that we understand what actually constructs our identity, if we are to preserve any type of agency, in a world that is technologically enhanced.

Turns out, I got it just fine. In fact, this extends my prior interest in advertising imagery to pretty much everything constructed by people: why was it made the way it was made? What is it trying to tell me? Do I have to listen? Do I want to? I can’t tell if I don’t hear it in the first place, and this course is an excellent way to start hearing what objects are saying.

One response to “Design MOOC

  1. Pingback: Pushcart XLII: Anthony Wallace, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” from Southern Review52:3 | A Just Recompense

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.