Davis's argument for updating design education to address 21st century complexity

Article Synopsis - Toto, I’ve Got a Feeling We’re not in Kansas Anymore In this article, Davis (2008) outlines the reasons design education needs to catch up to the realities of the 21st century. He starts off by mentioning that it has nothing to do with issues of theory, that the issue is primarily one of a technologically advanced age that has changed the way people do design. It is no longer a print medium that requires a studio space. The Internet has changed everything about life. Davis (2008) states that there are certain technical skills and concepts that still need to be taught about the essence of design but admits that the practice of design is different today than it was 100 years ago and this should matter to teachers.
He discusses the difference between know-how and know-that, the former referring to fundamentals, design concepts, and theories and the latter referring to practice, tools, and technology that are used today. The big problem for design educators in colleges is that the curriculum focuses almost exclusively on know-how and neglects the technical know-that side of things.
Not every educator agrees with this assessment, according to Davis (2008). Some believe that their approaches provide students with knowledge of design form, leadership skills, and enough understanding of the essence of design that they will be able to get into the field without a problem once they graduate. However, Davis (2008) argues that they are not introducing any of the new practices currently used in the design and that this limits and actually hurts students who think they are being prepared for the real world when in reality they are not.
He discusses the trends that have been identified by the AIGA with Adobe and notes that they are going to become bigger: they are not going away. These include more complex design challenges, a need to understand the community, and realizing that people for whom designers design also want to take part in the design process. Students and teachers both should be aware of these trends.
According to traditional teaching, students should be learning by moving from simple to complex practices. They should all be doing the same thing in class. The computer is merely an extension of traditional tools and media. Good design principles are universal. Graduate design should be about refining visual skills. Davis (2008) challenges each of these assumptions in light of what he learned from the AIGA and Adobe workshop.
Because the field is becoming more complex, Davis (2008) argues it is okay to allow students to explore that complexity using computers without first going through the motions of simple concepts. There is a pressing need to be familiar with complexity. The old fundamentals are no longer as important or really valid in today’s field. Moreover, students should be permitted to branch off and pursue their own interests. There is not really a need for everyone to do the same thing in class. Self-directed learning should be the order of the day. Design, moreover, is not necessarily something that has a universal standard. What is good design for some is not always going to be seen as good design by others. This is where the client comes into play: the client also wants to take part in the creative process with the designer, so there must be a spirit of collaboration at work. The designer should not see himself as an authority boxed in by rigid assumptions about design. The field of design is now a community full of people with varying notions of what works, what they want, and how to get it. Designers must be flexible able to tackle complex methods and schools need to teach that.
No references were used in this article to support what Davis (2008) was arguing. Because it was a speech, there are no source references used in the article or cited anywhere in the paper.

References Davis, M. (2008). Toto, I’ve got a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore….  Interactions, 15(5), 28-34.