Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science (The 1920s and the 1960s, two important periods in the modern history of design)
Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science (The 1920s and the 1960s, two important periods in the modern history of design)
复制标题
DOI：
10.1162/074793601750357196
复制
发表时间：
2001-06-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Cross, N
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cross, N
皇家艺术学院一项关于“通识教育中的设计”的研究项目的主要成果是对教育中缺失的“第三领域”的信念的陈述。这两个已经建立的领域可以大致分为科学教育和艺术教育，或人文教育。这“两种文化”长期以来一直被认为主导着我们的社会、文化和教育体系。特别是在传统的英国教育体系中，孩子们在相对较早的时候就被要求在这两种文化中选择一种或另一种来专攻。“第三种文化”不那么容易被认识，仅仅是因为它被忽视了，没有被充分地命名或阐述。在他们的报告（皇家艺术学院，1979年）中，Bruce Archer和他的同事准备将其称为“大写D的设计”，并将其表述为“物质文化的收集经验，以及体现在规划、发明、制造和行动艺术中的经验、技能和理解的收集体”。从RCA的报告中，可以得出以下结论，“设计大写D”的性质：
A principal outcome of a research project at the Royal College of Art on ‘Design in General Education’was the statement of a belief in a missing ‘third area’of education. The two already-established areas can be broadly classified as education in the sciences and education in the arts, or humanities. These ‘two cultures’ have long been recognised as dominating our social, cultural and educational systems. In the traditional English educational system, especially, children have been required to choose one or other of these two cultures to specialise in at a relatively early age.The ‘third culture’is not so easily recognised, simply because it has been neglected, and has not been adequately named or articulated. In their report (Royal College of Art, 1979), Bruce Archer and his colleagues were prepared to call it ‘Design with a capital D’and to articulate it as ‘the collected experience of the material culture, and the collected body of experience, skill and understanding embodied in the arts of planning, inventing, making and doing’. From the RCA report, the following conclusions can be drawn on the nature of ‘Design with a capital D’: