It takes a deliberate effort to carry Danish design traditions into the future. If design is to continue to be a key competitive parameter for Denmark in the globalized economy and play a key role for the development of Danish society, we need a new ambitious strategy for Danish design. A three-day seminar, from 30 September through 2 October 2008 at Aarhus School of Architecture, Denmark, aimed to define specific directions for a new strategy that could be turned into a policy capable of taking Danish design to the next level.

By Mads Nygaard Folkmann

The seminar Not defining design – but “Designing Design” at the Aarhus School of Architecture was the second in a series of seminars with the English professor John Heskett from the School of Design at Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Here, the debate continued about the potentials and challenges of design and design education.

Subsequently, John Heskett and the organisers from the Aarhus School of Architecture, Head of Department and Associate Professor Jørgen Rasmussen and Associate Professor Thomas Dickson, will summarise the debate and its key points in writing. This document can be used to inform future political decision-making processes to develop a new progressive design policy.

Many different players. The design area embraces many types of competencies, as reflected in the wide range of backgrounds represented at the seminar, including design as well as the mercantile area. Photo: Jørgen Rasmussen

Strategy for Action
At the seminar, four areas were identified and debated in groups with a view to defining guidelines for action; the goal was to add an operational level to the strategy rather than merely outlining a statement of intent.

The four areas are Practice, Education, Communication and Responsibility. This covers much of the field of design: Education and Practice address ways of becoming and acting as a designer. Communication addresses ways of explaining the potential contributions of design, and Responsibility was discussed as an overarching value defining the approach that designers may take to design.

Design’s Contributions to Society
On the last day of the seminar, the results of the debate in the four groups were presented in a plenary session. The interaction between design and society was addressed by several of the groups. The group that focused on Responsibility emphasised the importance of acting and working in a responsible fashion as a designer and to consider what design might do for society. Similarly, the group that focused on Practice said that design can contribute to society with a holistic, creative approach and by developing tools for handling, e.g., innovation and sustainability.

On the other hand, society might involve more designers in the development of new solutions in the social areas or in relation to service systems. This also requires that developments in design are communicated: The potential of design has to be shared with the general public.

The Practice group also pointed out the need for closer interaction between the practice field and design schools than there is today. Schools should do more to provide input to and receive input from the graduates, for example through ongoing education programmes and activities aimed at active designers. Design institutions are not defined once and for all, nor should designers be considered fully educated for life. Both engage in ongoing learning processes.

A Danish design university. Among the specific proposals from the seminar Not defining design – but “Designing Design” was the idea of establishing one national design university in Denmark. Photo: Jørgen Rasmussen

A New Design University
In a suggestion for debate, the Education group outlined a new organisational model for the Danish design education programmes. The key idea was that Denmark should have one design university. This entity should be divided among four campuses but with one joint research unit and, undoubtedly, also a joint research education programme. Various models were discussed, but the key point was the importance of bringing the overall capacity together in one entity to create a stronger educational and research environment.

Furthermore, a modular approach would aim to strengthen the professionalism in education. The idea was to develop a series of joint design bachelor programmes that might lead to a range of more specialised, high-level graduate programmes.

The strength in a joint bachelor programme is partly that everybody attains the same, high level, which means that everyone can be assumed to be on the same level when they embark on the graduate programme, and partly that it makes it easy and simple to go from the bachelor programme in one school to the graduate programme in another.

The Lack of Critical Mass
The English professor John Heskett, who contributed to the debate along the way, saw a clear road ahead: Strengthening the position of design in the education system also means raising the awareness of design in society at large. He did, however, also point to a structural problem in the Danish design education environment today, as the current structure with too many small entities prevents the build-up of critical mass to match the major changes affecting society.

As Heskett sees it, concentrating knowledge in a national design university is the way of the future. He also pointed out the importance of engaging in networks with institutions abroad. Denmark is engaged in a constant exchange with its surroundings, and this is a condition that has to be accommodated.

Design Reflects and Affects Danish Society
Both in this seminar and in the previous one in March 2008 at the Aarhus School of Architecture, Strategies for Danish Design – Practice, Research and Education, the overall topic of debate has been the relationship between society and design. The first seminar mapped the DNA of Danish design, i.e. its essence and key characteristics, as the basis for a discussion about the emergence and development of Danish design based on a particular view of society that embraces key values such as trust and welfare.

Developing models. Professor John Heskett of Hong Kong Polytechnic University contributed to the debate about the potentials and challenges of design and design education. Photo: Jørgen Rasmussen

The debates also focused on the fact that design not only reflects a society but also affects and helps develop it. The strong Danish tradition for using design in a public context, for instance, exemplifies the active role of design in the development of society, and Denmark also has good experiences with developing design for the health and care sector, for example.

Looking Behind Design
Thus, both seminars have been based on the underlying notion that one cannot simply rest on one’s laurels, as even the most golden of traditions must be constantly reconsidered and revitalised in today’s complex society and globalised economy. Thus, the role of design has also changed, and it is now an integrated aspect of, e.g., communication, sustainability and strategy concerns both in companies and in society.

It is in this perspective that one should see the seminars’ ambitions of ‘looking behind design’: What is design? What new ways and directions might be proposed for the development of future design? Or, in the words of the seminar organisers: How do we go about ‘designing design’?

Building the Strategy From the Bottom Up
The outcome of the two seminars is a qualified contribution to a future, proactive design policy. An actual design policy, of course, would have to be elaborated and passed in a political process with the requisite financial and administrative support from the relevant authorities. In a sense, kicking off this debate in an institution that works with design research and education is only natural, testimony to an active academic milieu pursuing progress.

At the same time, the debates in the seminars serve as qualified preliminary work that may contribute to the political process. Thus, this contribution to a new design policy comes from the bottom up – from an educational institution that deals with the professional substance hands-on, and which helps provide the raw material in charge of carrying out design in practice: designers.

The seminar Not defining design – but “Designing Design” that took place 30 September - 2 October 2008 was the second and final part under the joint heading Strategies for Danish Design – Practice, Research and Education. Part One was held at the Aarhus School of Architecture, Denmark, in March 2008; it debated how the basic values that created Danish design and its moorings in the welfare society might be updated and developed. John Heskett, professor at the School of Design at Hong Kong Polytechnic University, has been a key figure in both seminars. His role throughout the process has been to offer a qualified outside perspective. The organisers at the Aarhus School of Architecture were Associate Professor and Head of Department Jørgen Rasmussen and Associate Professor Thomas Dickson. The seminar received financial support from Velux Fonden and the Danish Centre for Design Research. Additional information is available from the web site of the Aarhus School of Architecture

 

Mind Design #13, 2008