In 2017, the Design History
Society (DHS) is celebrating its 40th anniversary. At the same time,
the Society’s journal, the Journal of
Design History, is in its 30th annual volume. Rather than
reflecting on these landmarks with reference to canonical or well-known work
from the past, the DHS agreed to mark these occasions through a call for new
work which examines design history, past, present and future. This work was
presented in a dedicated anniversary strand at the Society’s annual conference,
Making and Unmaking the Environment, which took place from 7th-9th
September at the University of Oslo in Norway. The conference was convened by Prof Kjetil Fallan who, among his many activities, was one of our annual TVAD Visiting Researchers. TVAD researcher Claire Jamieson attended the conference to give a paper about her research into NATØ. The anniversary strand comprised three
panels, each with three presentations.
Making and Unmaking the Environment Conference brochure. Photograph: Kjetil Fallan. |
The first panel, ‘New
Approaches to Design History’, began with Professor Ben Highmore (University of
Sussex) recuperating connoisseurship for design history in his paper ‘Design
History and Cultural Studies: Conjunctures, Tensions and Potentials’. Connoisseurship
has been associated with art history and the decorative arts, but it has a
function within contemporary design history, Highmore argued. Søren Rosenbak, a
student at Umeå University, followed this with a short report on his project
Design Research Failures, and asked what design historians might have to
contribute to this work. Rosenbak assumes that design research has failed as a
field, but the audience in Oslo were keen to recommend reflection on its
successes as well.
The strand attendees. Photo: DHS Ambassadors, twitter. |
The final paper in this
first panel ‘The Environment as “Context” in Design Historiography’ saw Joana
Meroz, of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, seek to move design history beyond
regarding politics as a human affair, to capture the workings of a broader
notion of politics and its sites including, especially, the political agency of
materials and things. She explained how the inherent qualities of objects may
determine the histories we share about them. For example, heavy machinery which
cannot physically fit into galleries exhibiting examples of Dutch design may be
erased from the history of Dutch design as a result of such exhibitions. This
panel offered three quite different presentations which contribute in different
ways to how we think about design history now. As the panel progressed, each
paper appeared to engage around points of tension. For Highmore, the
distinction between criticism and connoisseurship was key. Rosenbak’s talk
engaged distinctions between success and failure and design research and design
history. For Meroz, the relationships between people and
things, and things natural and man-made, were salient.
Our
second panel explored the ‘Places and Spaces of Design History’. Trond
Klevgaard (Royal College of Art) shared some of his doctoral research in a
presentation entitled ‘On Writing about New Typography from the Margins:
Problems and Approaches’. He looked at how modernism in design resonates
differently in different regions, and how it has been negotiated and adapted.
Next, Dr Fredie Floré (University of Leuven) and Dr Javier Gimeno Martínez
(Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) presented jointly their call for ‘Making Room
for Design History in Belgium’. Javier was a TVAD Visiting Researcher when he was preparing his book Design and National Identity (Bloomsbury 2016). His paper with Fredie Floré shared many parallels with the
following one, ‘Learning from History – but how? Design History in Swiss Design
Education’ by Meret Ernst (Hochschule für Gestaltung und Kunst, Basel). Both
were concerned about the lack of a strong and distributed national base for
design history, in Belgium and Switzerland respectively, and how this might
impact on the development of design history in those nations.
|
The
strand’s last panel, ‘Making and
Unmaking National Identity: Design “In”, “Of” and "From" Ireland’ continued
and increased the focus of the examination of national design histories with a
trio of presentations. ‘Made in Ireland’? National Narratives and Global
Networks in Irish Design History’ by Dr Sorcha O’Brien (Kingston University)
explored the ways in which one lamp has been presented as part of the canons of
both Irish and Scandinavian design, and what that might tell us about the
importance of mediation in ascribing national identity in design. Dr Lisa
Godson (National College of Art and Design, Dublin) shared her project work on ‘Irish
Design in Africa: Practices of the Transnational National’, with a case study
of churches built in Africa to Irish designs and specifications. Godson
countered the idea that Ireland has simply absorbed external notions of
modernity with a case study of a design dialogue between Ireland and Nigeria. These
churches contribute to the histories of architecture in Ireland and Nigeria at
once. The final presentation in this panel, and the strand, was ‘Putting the
“Irish” into Irish Design 1950-2015’ by Mary Ann Bolger (Dublin Institute of
Technology). Bolger examined the ways in which Irish design and manufacturing
have been promoted overseas. For example, she outlined the decision-making
process to name the butter known as Kerrygold and its associated imagery.
Mary Ann Bolger discussing Irish stamps. Photo: Grace Lees-Maffei. |
The
strand as a whole told us that the geography of design history remains
critically important as a focus for the development of the field. It was a
privilege to chair such a rich strand at the Design History Society’s 2017
conference. The audience were engaged and contributed many useful questions and
comments for developing the research we heard still further. This anniversary
strand showed that design history’s future is bright.
Prof Grace Lees-Maffei, University of Hertfordshire,
UK.
No comments:
Post a Comment