White Sound and the Footsteps of Giants

Once, walking with a farmer in a field of cows I saw a young bull charging the fence while an old bull leisurely walked through the far-end gate and had the cows to himself. I had a deep understanding of the young bull’s attempt at that time. More recently I came to understand another parable in relation to this moment of my past. Hannah Arendt reminds us of Kafka’s tale of an eternal struggle – call it a bloody fight – between the past and the future. Being caught in this epic battle one pushes the past from behind in an attempt to secure some ground. But in other moments visions of a possible future takes hold and one finds yourself pushing future along as it fights bravely for meaningful and significant change. To make sense of this one must jump out of the line of battle. Carefully observe, learn, and prepare. Jumping back into the struggle will only produce meaningful results once one is more fully prepared. This dance routine never ends and to wit, is native to design thinking.

We are certainly in a moment – as paradoxically as it may seem – where critique and meaningful debate is crucial and yet rendered with scepticism. On both sides of the aporetic boundary defining this struggle we are attempting to make sense of the intersection between true invention and ultimate banality, between intelligent thinking and routine execution, and between drift and predictability. It is with this view that I support and contribute to the debate.

But I do that with serious qualifications. First that all statements pertaining to issues, events or individuals be placed in its proper context, and second, that contributions need to add significantly to the debate. I specifically point to the statements about Professors Bruce Mau and Ellen Grimes in the earlier posts. To move this discussion to another level where we can argue, debate and critique the real issues at hand I respectfully ask that we keep to the facts when it comes to events or individuals. Professor Mau is contributing significantly to the broader field of various intersecting disciplines and is involved with SAIC as a distinguished visiting professor and practicing designer who is not part of any specific department, and certainly not embedded within AIADO. Professor Mau’s work in Chicago and his visiting position at SAIC affords us, and the city at large, with opportunities for collaborative engagement and dialogue. The events of the past semester gave us all the opportunity to contribute, argue and debate within a public forum. I for one was rather surprised at the lack of penetrating questioning and significant observations from the audience at these events. From within AIADO I offer our department’s approach below and by defining our position within current debates. This statement is as alive and dynamic in its mutation as the work produced by faculty, students, and visiting artists and designers here and at top schools around the world.

Many different interpretations of design are entering public discourse and are evolving and converging in a fast changing world where designers need to be comfortable with uncertainty and complexity – often having to locate their creative imagination in paradoxical opportunity outside the traditional boundaries of design. Art, design, science and entrepreneurial business are teaming to create new protocols and information flows. With the social shaping of technology out-dated bureaucratic mechanisms are breaking down around alternative environmental, social, and political sensibilities. Design is at the core of these changes in translating thought into the more tangible. The academy responds with significant alternatives in education and, through collaborative partnerships, a network of informed personalities contribute to the design of our changing world – making it dense, fluid, and dynamic. How designers explore this complexity is by definition a highly creative act of design. At the School of the Art Institute of Chicago we encourage and practice a vibrant engagement with design. As faculty we believe that future designers will need to be thinking designers – willing to explore unknown territory and engage problems not yet defined, taking risks while confident enough to find opportunity in failure. Deep explorations in the studio context are required where the art of thinking and making translate into the ineffable – at the very intersection of art, design and architecture. Explorations that are useful beyond the realm of design and adding significant meaning to environments across all scales – challenging the fluid borderline that defines the spatial, the world of objects, and the many opportunities in cognitive and non-cognitive environments yet to be explored. We take play and risk seriously. We give freedom with the one hand while expecting accountability with the other. With the rigor of thinking flowing from this philosophical approach we are breeding a new kind of relevance for future designers and architects. We launch future individual voices that are willing to lead in the fast mutating cultural landscapes – changing the field from the inside out while connecting past traditions with future possibilities.

It is only when oneself can produce a body of work that contributes significantly over a sustained period of time that one dares to criticise without substantiation. The value of a forum like this will only become significant when we argue and explore with integrity and with the willingness to translate our arguments into intellectual armour befitting our jump back into the line of battle.

Hennie Reynders
Associate Professor and Chair
Architecture, Interior Architecture and Designed Objects
School of the Art Institute of Chicago