Research in Art and Design

An Analyzing Essay by Andreas Sjberg

Christopher Frayling begins his text on research in the fields of art and design with a semantic discussion of the word research, a good way to start of considering his ambition with the text to build a bridge between the academic rift separating fine arts from science. He argues (supported by the Oxford English Dictionary) that research is given a different meaning depending on if it written with a capital R or not. Capital R Research earns its capitalization through its professional context where it promotes work directed towards the innovation, introduction and improvement of products and processes. The other research strives to describe the act of searching, closely or carefully, for or after a specified thing or person. This being separated for the professional quest for innovation that defines Research, research is rather a search for something pre-defined. Before discussing these terms in the context of art and design he concludes that his point is not one of definitions, but rather of usage. He starts of his application of the idea of research on art through an interview given by Pablo Picasso in 1923. He speaks of operating with a spirit of research, but also makes clear that research is not an objective in itself for him. Before moving on trying to redefine the role of research within art and design, Frayling speaks of the stereotypes of the artist, designer as well as the scientist, whose work often is synonymous with the act of research. He takes examples from Hollywood such as Kirk Douglas role as Vincent van Gogh in the 1956 film Lust for Life. The movies paint a picture of a tempered man (it is always a man) struggling to express through creativity what is inside his troubled mind. The designer is often portrayed as someone with a very hands on approach to (again) his practice. It is a man who designs through doing, without the analyzing and hypothesizing we normally link with research. The scientist is portrayed as the opposite to the two above mentioned stereotypes. He (yup, still he) is someone who immerses himself into his research, who submerges his subjectivity to study his subject. Creativity, the so highly valued virtue within art and design, is rarely an important mean for reaching his goal. Frayling then makes a case against the legitimacy of the validity of these stereotypes, citing studies showing the links between experimental scientists and creative artists. He argues that the popular image of these fields ignores the cognitive aspects of art as well as the creative aspects of scientific work. He takes examples from the time before the academic divide between fine arts and sciences in the early 19th century such as Leonardo da Vinci who combined art and science in his work. He concludes his text by again stressing the common ground between science and fine arts. He suggest ways of conducting research into art and design, through art and design as well as research for art and design.

The common goal for both the texts is to categorize and give a historical background to scientific and research based approaches to art and design. They also have in common to suggest new ways of looking at the connections between the different fields. Nigel Cross Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline Versus Design Science takes a more narrow focus than Frayling when he describes the recent history of science in design. Both texts brings up the problem that art and design for long has been seen as separated from the cognitive analysis of scientific methods, while arguing that they have a lot of common ground. Cross however discusses the problems that has arisen earlier when the design process has become too intertwined with scientific methods. He argues that the debate reached a point where the intuitive thinking so essential for design was suppressed to a degree that hurt the practice. What especially caught my interest in the texts was the quest to scientize design as described in Nigel Cross text. Given the historical background, I can really see the reasons behind the emergence of that debate in the light of an increasingly industrial and scientific society. It was also a debate that was very present in the field of architecture, both in its first wave during the 1920s and its second during the 1960s. The new spirit both Theo van Doesburg and Le Corbusier spoke of in the 1920s I find both fascinating in the artifacts (to use Cross language) it spawned as well as the influence it had on art and architecture during the 20th century. I have at times used methods to progress with projects in the spirit of creating the machine for living Le Corbusier spoke of. I really think it helps to keep this very concrete approach of generating your work but remembering that it is one approach out of several. In the second wave of trying to merge scientific methods with the practice of design in the 1960s, I can see a more problematic approach to design emerging. I think it is very hard and not particularly beneficial to establish a body of intellectually tough, analytic, partly empirical, teachable doctrine about the design process as Buckminster Fuller propagated for. At least from my point of view within architecture, viewing the design process like this would make it too narrow. Architecture is in the end of the day a task that is more complex than to simply solving an equation, even if I like that aspect of it, I remember that it is only one way, a simplistic way, of looking at the practice. Therefore I can agree with much of the criticism of the design methodology that surfaced in its backlash in the 1970s. I agree with J. Christopher Jones when he opposes the continual attempt to fix the whole of life into a logical framework. The whole idea of establishing a method for design work I think is unfitting considering the uniqueness that often is required from the result. The debate between those opposing and supporting methodology in design I however find interesting. Especially when it comes to how design is taught in schools. Again going back to architecture which I think is really hard to find a good balance in teaching since there cannot be a one true method of acquiring the knowledge you need. Still it needs to provide the tools necessary to take part in the work place of architectural practice.

This question is also something I have reflected upon myself during my time in school. I realize that the most important thing we take with us is the skill of creating spaces, which of course have to be learned intuitively, by doing. For me, I can at times find it hard to keep track of what I have learned. I suppose it is a skill that dawn on you through time, which I have kind of sensed through being more confident in how to start new projects. As my time in the bachelors programme is nearing an end I begin to wonder if I should have tried to establish an informal personal method from which I initiated design projects. Viewing this recent workshop in the light of this I think it would have been better suited earlier on in the education to help us identify within the role of the designer. The way the school has mixed teaching concrete knowledge that works as essential tools of taking part in creating the built environment as well as stimulating the intuitive mindset of creation could then have been merged in a way that would be easier to grasp for the students. But I can see the benefits of this workshop in this time considering we have been working within the research field of architecture for a while with the Everyday Dharavi project. These texts have helped in how we should relate the research to the design process we now are to begin.