CONCEPTUAL? ARE YOU SURE?

The fervent argument against the misleading use of a term so easily thrown around in design education

Try breaking your routine one-day, instead of just showing up to your 4th floor class on Tuesday afternoon, come in the morning and you’ll see and hear something completely different. Maybe, you might even realize something about the place that you’ve dedicated your education and in all fairness handed your immediate life over to. In these circumstances, certain basic recourses and principles must be provided for and adhered to in the least. Similarly, an institu-tion that promotes itself as something special needs to perform along those lines. This isn’t to say that students have no responsibility, if they are not in charge of their own education personal problems are eminent. But what then, do they go to school for? In such an environment, there is no discussion to the fact that students are being critiqued rather than taught. This is an under-stood standard but then the critique must come from a founded reasoning that student are made aware of. This is true in many cases. Judgments have to be professionally delivered to be effec-tive. It has to be professional in the sense that not too much personality gets involved if any at all. One can be criticized personally based on their work, but nothing else.

An institution that prides itself on a certain ethos, such as a free and more personalized approach to design, should make sure that what they are communicating is not only realistic but also not philosophically reckless. The term conceptual is thrown around so easily, that no one knows what it means anymore. Very often, anything that is different or takes new form based on its function is immediately coined as this, holiest of holy, connotations. The school functions on the notion that anything from a material experimentation to a broad assignment based theme is conceptual, but really the term that it should be replaced with is, “expressive.” It does not suf-fice to alter something without substantial reason nor a conscientious analysis. We are design-ers, not artists, and as much as the cross-pollination of these stigmatized labels are beneficial in terms of skills, limits are unavoidable. A concept is a fancy word for an idea, but the word conceptual is quite a cultural and theoretical deviation for its root. Applied to both disciplines mentioned, conceptual is only really applicable when referring to an analysis on a deeper level. A conceptual idea is not a one-liner. There is a distinction between conceptual thought and objects; it does not constitute the foundation of being as a whole. There is a lot of value to being expressive but if you cannot back it up with evidence or denied evidence then it is not concep-tual. The formation as an expressive designer is useful and if so, more technical content should exist. If being conceptual is necessary, there should also be more focus on in depth theory, such as the social sciences. This would also provide for stronger relevancy in the world. It is important to understand that there is nothing more beautiful than a truly sublime and free creative ambigu-ity, but balance as a person is vital to being a designer.

This school is unique as it provides room for experimentation on ones own; in many cir-cumstance the need to compensate for inadequate help makes a student more personally driven. This does not defend lacking guidance, as it is a fundamental issue. This school functions mar-velously by training a strong work ethic and sense of presentation, better than most of the other options available but some glaring issues keep it behind.

ADRIAN MADLENER - 2010