Abstract

Five steps in the development of design studio culture are analysed based on a review of the literature: (i) Nikolai Ladovsky ́s “Psycho-Technical Research Laboratory”, 1921 to 1927, (ii) Gilbert Rohde ́s “Design Laboratory”, 1935 to 1937, (iii) Frederick Kiesler ́s “Laboratory for Design Correlation”, 1937 to 1941, (iv) John C. Jones ́ “Design Research Laboratory”, approx. 1963 to 1974, and (v) Neil Gershenfeld ́s “Fab Labs”, since 2003. Attention is drawn to the different ways in which art, science and technology are included in the curricula of these educational programmes. Contents and goals of teaching refer to features of laboratories and methods of work. An attempt is made to show how the metaphor of the laboratory was used to establish these programmes. The experimental character of the programmes and the changes from “pseudo-laboratory conditions” to “real-studio conditions” are discussed. The selected programmes can be characterised thematically, methodologically and metaphorically. The issue is to discuss design education not only as a technical but also as a social phenomenon.

Keywords:

design history, design research, design education

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 License

Share

COinS
 
Jun 25th, 12:00 AM

The Design Laboratory. A Review of Five Design Education Programmes

Five steps in the development of design studio culture are analysed based on a review of the literature: (i) Nikolai Ladovsky ́s “Psycho-Technical Research Laboratory”, 1921 to 1927, (ii) Gilbert Rohde ́s “Design Laboratory”, 1935 to 1937, (iii) Frederick Kiesler ́s “Laboratory for Design Correlation”, 1937 to 1941, (iv) John C. Jones ́ “Design Research Laboratory”, approx. 1963 to 1974, and (v) Neil Gershenfeld ́s “Fab Labs”, since 2003. Attention is drawn to the different ways in which art, science and technology are included in the curricula of these educational programmes. Contents and goals of teaching refer to features of laboratories and methods of work. An attempt is made to show how the metaphor of the laboratory was used to establish these programmes. The experimental character of the programmes and the changes from “pseudo-laboratory conditions” to “real-studio conditions” are discussed. The selected programmes can be characterised thematically, methodologically and metaphorically. The issue is to discuss design education not only as a technical but also as a social phenomenon.

 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.