DRS2018: Catalyst

Abstract

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. design history, design research, design education 7The programmes reviewed have in common that they attempted to reform design and research by relying on the metaphor of the laboratory. The question was raised whether art could be regarded as laboratory work. This paper examines the laboratories through a review of the literature. Looking into the programmes of Ladovsky and Jones is difficult because the documentary material is limited or not open to the public. Analysing the laboratories and studios is also affected by the fact that the original work of Ladovsky, Rhode, Kiesler, Jones and Gershenfeld has in the meantime been modified and translated. Knowledge of the original experimental processes is therefore rather hypothetical (Latour & Woolgar 1986, pp. 172-174). The creation of reference by permanently translating between matter and form is a possible method for assessing studio work (Latour 1999, p. 69f). Earlier steps are reconstructed within a reference chain.