Critical Writing

The development of design and its progress are permanent. Design cannot stop in its development. Hence, it is constantly changing and evolving. In such a situation, it is obvious that design has its own history and, in order understand design at large and design at the current stage of its development, it is necessary to know its history.

However, the research of the history of design can raise a number of unexpected problems and the major problem is the problem of underdevelopment of history of design as a branch of science.

In this respect, it is possible to refer to the article “Design History Basics” by H. Conway, in which the author argues that the history of design is a recent trend in the modern science. In other words, history of design has appeared in a relatively recent epoch and is a new direction in the development of modern science[1]. In such a way, the research of the design history is, a priori, a kind of innovative activity which should rely on the ability of a researcher to conduct reliable studies in the new field.

Another problem that arises in the development of the design history is the problem of the definition of the scope of design[2]. In actuality, it is difficult to identify the scope of the design history because often it intersects with other domains of historical studies as well as design studies and one of the major challenges of researchers is to compel both history and design into one subject of research.

At the same time, often people are conscious of the fact that things that surround in them in their daily life, such as chairs, tables, may be objects of design history. However, it is necessary to distinguish primary sources, which can be found in the primary material, and secondary sources of design history, which can be found in numerous articles and researches dedicated to the design history[3].

Remarkably, Dilnot, in his article “The State of Design History” agrees with Conway that researchers of design history do not know their subject matter[4]. Obviously, in such a context, it quite difficult to conduct a reliable research and, therefore, the entire study of design history can be under a question: whether it has a scientific value or not.

Moreover, the scientific value of design history is underestimated by the modern society[5]. As the matter of fact, people are unwilling to view design and design history a subject of historical and cultural value that is apparently a simplification of design and design history. In addition, design history is often viewed from the materialist positions[6] that naturally decrease the aesthetic and cultural value of design.

Thus, in conclusion, it should be said that the history of design is very important for understanding of design and its current trends. However, the research of design history faces numerous obstacles. Specialists, such as Dilnot and Conway, argue that design history is not clearly distinguished as a new branch of science and its subject remains obscure. As a result, researchers often face unsurpassable barrier in the study of design history. On the other hand, it is obvious that the study of design history is essential since it lays the foundation for the understanding of past and present of design.



[1] Conway, H. 1987. “Design History Basics.” Design History: Student’s Handbook. London: Unwin Hyman, p. 4.

[2] Conway, H. 1987. “Design History Basics.” Design History: Student’s Handbook. London: Unwin Hyman, p. 4.

 

[3] Conway, H. 1987. “Design History Basics.” Design History: Student’s Handbook. London: Unwin Hyman, p. 11-12.

[4] Dilnot, C. 1989. “The State of Design History.” Design Discourse: History, Theory, Criticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p.233.

[5] Dilnot, C. 1989. “The State of Design History.” Design Discourse: History, Theory, Criticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p.233.

 

[6] Dilnot, C. 1989. “The State of Design History.” Design Discourse: History, Theory, Criticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p.235.



Leave a Reply