In 2013, as part of her graduation project On Design Education, Eugenie Delariviere decided to write a letter to Thomas Widdershoven, freshly appointed Creative Director of the Design Academy Eindhoven. Illustrations come from another part of Delariviere’s project entitled This is (not) a manifesto.
Dear creative director,
Some of the topics I am about to address you might already know too well but I have to include them to assure a logic continuity in my line of thoughts.
I am a student in design, following a master’s degree at the Design Academy Eindhoven therefore this research cannot, in any way, be considered as an objective view on design education.
I look at things from my own perspective, looking at education from what surrounds me.
As a result, I take full responsibility for the following.
Keeping in mind that my ideas are far from fixed, and I hope they will never be, I try constantly to reconsider them. And truly, the reason for this correspondence initiative follows the same objective; the reevaluation of my opinion.
With this letter I wish to start an education discussion in which students are included. I do not pretend to speak for ‘the group’. On the contrary, as I just stated, this is the result of my personal reflection.
Over the past months, I have looked deeply into design education.
And it is deliberately that this series of texts have turned into a letter addressed to you.
It comes as a reaction to the vast amount of existing writings on the subject.
I don’t want my reflection to be added to the multitude of articles floating within an abstract theory bubble.
Additionally, it is following my desire to contextualize my research that I do not refer back to any education theories but rather to recent articles touching upon various design topics.
I am not a critic, a theorist or an intellectual
I am a student and a designer,
This is my education frustration.
And following is a list of what I consider emerging needs in education.
My Education Frustration – April 19th, 2013
Dear new Creative Director,
In June I will graduate from the Design Academy Eindhoven with a Master in Contextual design.
As my classmate and I, will be celebrating our new diplomas, it will also be the first anniversary of what some of us like to refer to as ‘Dutch Resign Week’.
On July 5th 2012 following long negotiations over the school’s renewal, the three heads (Jan Boelen, head of Social Design, Louise Schouwenberg, head of Contextual Design and Joost Grootens, head of Information Design) of the master’s programs resigned.
As you know, the news spread quickly in the media. Opinions on education were widely shared, creating vivid discussions amongst professionals, academics, students and others.
Since then the discussion went on, it spread in magazines (Domus, Abitare etc), in
schools symposiums, in Milan talks, giving everyone the opportunity to build his
I am part of the students that were ´head-less´, and almost mentor-less last summer. As this event led to your hiring, you must have already been explained what happened, both by the school’s board and by our group of heads, but as you come in, I think it is equally important to briefly go over these weeks from a student’s perspective.
While a whole debate was taking place beyond the academy’s walls, another one was happening within it. On the outside, critics were turned mostly towards the on-going ´bureaucratization’ of design education, whereas on the inside the debate was set around the notions of inclusive transparency.
As professionals were frustrated, because they felt the system was no longer based
« on trust and dynamics, but on distrust, hierarchy and control. »(1)
students shared similar feelings; regarding the lack of ‘transparency’ which excluded them from the system. Both discussions were linked by a common concern for the growing lack of trust given to professionals and students within education.
The weeklong of uninterrupted education discussions that followed, added to my growing frustration that students were not included in the process of education.
In many of the meetings we attended, the Design Academy was referred to as a brand, and although I do not want here to argue against it, it led me to question the role of the students as either products or clients of the brand.
What really triggered my frustration in this discussion is when we were answered by the executive board to the question;
« How can you assure the continued quality of our programs? »
not to worry;
« You pay, we provide ».(2)
It was for me a brutal exclusion from my education. It went beyond being considered both as product and client; I was regarded as a passive consumer rather than an active participant.
It is during these chaotic weeks, motivated by my disappointment that I decided to start my research on education.
Despite the fact that this research was essentially triggered by the DAE crisis, it adresses a much wider European design education context.
Over the past decade, we have witnessed a multitude of ‘schools’ coming into being.
Mostly as artist-led projects they have in common the aim to offer an alternative to the existing system. This tendency of DIY schools, in addition to the students’ protests of the past years shows a widely shared educational discontent within the design community.
Breaking away from the institutions, every opportunity becomes a pretext for ‘a school’; museums, biennales, bars etc. On the whole widely approved, their message gets lost in ephemerality, overshadowed by the very institution they criticize.
Although the critics of the design community seem to be mostly turned towards the growing bureaucratization of their academic institutions, it seems as if they should be reoriented towards a redefinition of their educational purposes.
However, when it comes to defining schools’ functions, there is a clear division within the design profession.
On one side the believers that a school should serve as a training ground for ‘real world’ application (= a job), whereas on the other, stand the believers that it should be a safe environment to foster ‘self-development’. While I believe it should be a little bit of both I have some reservations.
In my opinion, to prepare only for the job market is a flawed strategy when, in recent history, we have experienced both the de-industrialization of Europe and the collapse of the market, in addition to other major economic turnaround.
Additionaly, it has been said that 65% of our generation will have jobs that do not yet exist(3). This leads me to think that as students, we need not to prepare for a job, but to prepare to define our own vocation in society.
While, it can be argued that this can be achieved through encouraged ‘self-development’. I fear it is, here again, a lack of strategy to rely only on the introspective vision that design schools have built. The absence of ‘real world’ confrontation does not prepare you to be, and most certainly not to become in that world.
As we witness a growing gap between the evolution of the design profession and its translation into education, I believe there is an urgent need for an education reaction.
To bridge the void, is a matter of finding the right balance between both of these education visions. It is therefore our shared responsibility to rethink the system through which we are taught.
Dear new Creative Director, as you take on the creative leadership of the Design Academy Eindhoven, you are expected to come with: the new vision.
It is the motive of my letter, as you build the new vision, I wish to share with you the reasons for my education frustration.
Because reinventing starts by understanding, as a student and a designer,
I began my research with a rather hands on approach; from observation and experience.
To get a hold of education as whole, I divided my research in four parts, based on what I identified as the four elements forming the main ‘pillars’ of our academic institutions.
These four notions are; Community, Structure, Content and Environment.
The interactions they have with one another shape the educational system.
To begin with, I need to start by making clear what I mean by; Environment, Structure, Content, and Community.
Environment represents the context in which design education takes place.
It is a wide notion which encompasses multiple layers of context; geographical, economic, political but also, mental and physical.
Structure represents the way people and facilities are coordinated within the system. It is responsible for the organization of the institution.
Content represents the knowledge gathered, produced and distributed within and beyond the institution.
And to finish, Community represents the group of individuals involved in and around the institution.
In order to fully understand what roles these elements play in education, I started by looking into how each of these notions related to one another by determining how each influenced the other. Pairing them, I looked at how combinations differed from their opposites.
Structure=Content implies a top-down approach of knowledge, raising the
question of knowledge accreditation, knowledge hierarchy, as well as of
formal vs. informal knowledge.
Whereas Content=Structure implies that if knowledge forms structure it leads to a more bottom up approach of producing and sharing knowledge for example; crowd source and open source systems.
The same goes with Structure=Community vs. Community=Structure and so on.
If you wish to look further into this, I joined to this letter a condensed map of my research.
This method helped me to get an overview of the education system.
More importantly, it helped me demystify the intimidating notion of education.
I will not go in endless research details, as to how each combination’s outcome differs from another. The long factual analysis would not add to this letter.
Instead, I used this method to identify what I consider as emergencies in design education today. By emergencies, I mean the emerging needs we have to address in order to feel the growing education gaps.
Understanding Bologna – Emergency#1
When it comes to addressing higher education in Europe I cannot avoid mentioning the Bologna Process. It is probably nothing new to you, but I will nevertheless briefly go over it.
At the present time, the global politico economic context has a major influence on our schools. As governments are stepping down from their cultural responsibility, they contribute to the ongoing privatization of multiple cultural institutions. Forced to comply with the Bologna process, schools do not escape the trend.
Formulated with the ambition of increasing European higher education’s competitiveness worldwide, the process aims to create a common knowledge area through a global European education alignment. It started off as the Bologna declaration, signed by multiple European Education ministers in 1999; it later became the Bologna process, to be fully implemented in 2010.
The goal of harmonization of higher education, intended to facilitate students’ mobility within the European Union. This implied the need for a clear equivalences system, together with a standardization of academic degrees and the creation of a common credit system (the European Credits Transfer System).
Actually, it seems that the underlying reason for the bologna process is to adapt to the market’s reorientation towards a knowledge-based economical system. The process, agreed on from the political sphere, caused universities to be obligated to restructure their system according to new standards; one of them being that schools had to align with the Anglo-Saxon model of a three-year bachelor and a two-year master program.
Thus, resulting in students being rushed through the system due to the increasing pressure put on schools by governments.
If a student does not reach the expected number of credits in the given amount of time (of 240 ECTS within a three year bachelor program and 120 within a two year master program) schools run the risk of being fined.
Overall, the Bologna process not only risks encouraging a standardization of knowledge through ‘harmonization’ of exam criteria, but of encouraging a lowering of expectations in an attempt to avoid additional fees. (The changed structure comes to have a direct impact on the quality of content dealt with in our schools.)
Also, one of the many interesting article I read on the subject; « Mourning Bologna »(4), by Dietrich Lemke, Professor in Pedagogy. In a very critical report he exposes the politico-economic reasons behind the process.
He ironically argues that;
« For the purposes of business, it is best that the intelligence of university graduates is carefully steered into well-demarcated areas of immediate market application.”
“It is up to critical academics, dissenting students, and the first signs of resistance within the trade union movement to expose the true meanings of Bologna. »
To react on what D. Lemke is saying in the article, the true meaning of Bologna has indeed, been heavily criticized. And despite the fact that students, teachers, staff, technicians have protested against its implementation in France, in Germany, in England (…), the influences of interest groups that benefit from it have proven to be greater.
Not to appear naive here, to reverse the process is an impossible task, but we can find ways to develop strategies in order to resist to its failures.
Claim ownership of our education - Emergency#2
Having said that, I feel the need to call for an education reaction.
The weight of the growing bureaucratization of the majority of public services has generated major discontent on a worldwide scale; illustrated for example in organizations such as the Occupy movement. Currently, because our educational infrastructures are challenged in similar ways, we need to react.
As schools’ open structures are transformed into educational management systems, we risk a major ‘exodus’ from design academies.
This was, amongst other things, one of the main reasons that led to the departure of the heads last summer.
Once again I quote an abstract from their resignation letter* in which they reflect their vision of the possible outcomes of DAE’s educational reform schemes;
« The dominant system will be one of educational management, whose main purpose appears to be to stifle creativity and substantive development in a tangle of meetings.
The newly created functions and reciprocal apportionment of roles express the desire to control: to divide and rule. This is a set-up we can no longer commit ourselves to.”(5)
To prevent a desertion of our schools, by creative professionals and students, more adaptive systems have to be considered.
Most educators within design schools are professionals, causing design education to be based on intuitions rather than strict curriculums. This is made possible by the open infrastructure of our schools. Design professionals are responsible for shaping the programs. We, the design community, need to continue on defending that.
I am pushing open doors here, but to maintain Creatives as heads of our schools has to be one of our priorities if we want to assure continued ownership over our education.
And of course, as schools grow bigger there needs to be some organizational structure backing up the creative. Nevertheless creativity should remain the dominant aim of design education institutions.
On the whole, the major discontent of the design community when it comes to education is that it is being striped off its freedom by the growing hierarchical organizations of academic institutions.
As a student, my frustration is doubled; I feel I am being twice robbed of my education.
Firstly by the growing managerialism; secondly by my school’s excluding systems.
It is important for me that the structure allows room for education appropriation.
Therefore, increasingly more inclusive systems have to be thought of.
As a student (I repeat myself here, but it is important that I state my position), I want to be considered as an active participant of my education.
By participant I don’t mean it as; ‘participants can choose any role within the system’, it is instead about granting each the room to define their role within it. More than flexibility it is about adaptability.
Adding to this, as I said earlier; a great percentage of our generation will have jobs that do not yet exist, which means that we as students, and future designers have to develop the entrepreneurial skills to define our own professional activities.
It should start within our education. Schools need to give us, students, the trust to
experiment with our abilities to interact within a system from our education and on.
On one side schools need to affirm ownership of their educational system, on the other, they need to grant their students the space for their own education appropriation.
Design schools should encourage students to aim further, both in their education and their future professionalization, not for what exists already, but actively shaping what comes next.
Rethinking disciplines – Emergency#3
To go on with my list of emergent topics I want to refer back to the Bologna process’s consequences on schools.
In order to adapt to the common credit system, schools have to adopt a clear modularization of their courses. Although it does not lead to radical changes, it emphasizes the limits of disciplines. Because it accentuates boundaries, it is at risk of getting rid of the ‘in between’.
To the classical question of whether a project is Art or Design is now added: Is it Social or Contextual? As much as I understand the need for a clear distinction to be made for branding reasons. I feel that; when practices are labeled, their reach, as well as, their outcome is ‘diminished’.
If I mention the distinction between Social and Contextual design it is because this year I was offered (together with two other students) the opportunity to be followed by
mentors from both departments.
It brought up various questions as to;
Why only a few students were ‘chosen’ to have access to this privilege?
As well as; How do we differentiate Social from Contextual?
The strongest outcome of it was the shared desires to all have access to all mentors.
Although, heads and mentors agreed to it, the structure does not yet allow it.
What this made me realize is that what the research is defined as is not substantial. May it be social or contextual, the importance is not the labels but the content. The emphasize must be put on the research and the exchanges with mentors that contribute to it.
More importantly, the students’ desire to stand between practices needs not to be ignored within schools; they reflect the expectations of students regarding their future professions.
Along this line, I want to refer to a discussion I had with my classmate Tauras Stalnionis. This year, he has been exploring the limits of the design field. Arguing that design disciplines are differentiated for the ‘outside’ world, he questions the possibilities for the disciplines to be reframed. And in my opinion, he makes a valid point there.
The design professions is constantly being re-invented, designers gradually self-proclaim their activities.
Why should we keep on respecting the clear discipline demarcations within our schools?
In a time where Internet has enabled people to get rid of intermediary roles, the direct ‘digital’ access to knowledge allowed them to take a step out of education institutions. The development of tools, such as crowd source or open source programs, caused for knowledge ‘boundaries’ to be lowered, shortening the gap between legitimate and illegitimate information.
The education shift the Internet has caused should not be ignored within our schools. Not only did it make information increasingly accessible, giving the opportunity for new possibilities of sharing, producing and distributing knowledge, but also it contributed to the redefinition of the classic linear educational system (mentor>student) in favor of a horizontal ‘happening’ of learning (mentor><student). Everyone is now learning and teaching simultaneously.
Moreover, because of the abolishment of information hierarchy, we have entered an era of peer-to-peer immediacy, where knowledge is produced and shared instantly. It granted a growing importance to the amateur culture. And therefore, encouraged designers to engage outside of their comfort zone.
Thus adding to the growing blur of discipline limitations.
In response to both the effect of modularization of content and the effect of Internet on knowledge, schools must seek for continuous disciplinary trespassing. In order to be at the same time; across, between and beyond disciplines we must engage in transdisciplinarity practices. It does not mean to abolish boundaries, but rather to know their limits and develop the ability to move across them freely.
To use transversally as means of reflection, allows for an essential cross-fertilization of research.
Because our relationships to knowledge have been redefined and because we have entered an era of immediacy and temporality, we need to reconsider discipline organizations as well as strive for new discipline dynamics.
Contextualize education through collaboration – Emergency#4
Considering that ‘learning’ is gradually moving outside of schools; schools need not to focus on teaching but on producing knowledge.
To become producers rather than distributors of knowledge, schools must turn increasingly towards the outside, developing a more collaborative approach.
As we step out of the exclusive design bubble, we might be confronted to a hard reality fact; Design will not change the world. But if connected to other disciplines it can pretend to. Using the Bauhaus manifesto(6) to illustrate the above, disciplines
“exist in complacent isolation, and can only be rescued by the conscious co-operation and collaboration of all”
The Bauhaus ideals are far from outdated, however, close to celebrating their 100 years anniversary, their application needs to be renewed.
Where the Bauhaus linked all artistic practices together by bringing them all in the workshops, its collaboration goals should nowadays be applied to a wider disciplinary scale.
As you know, the success of the Bauhaus stands on the fact that it has brought the workshops within schools. Giving students direct access to the making.
Surprisingly, we witness today the process is inversed.
Indeed, illustrated in the multitude of new generation workshops; fablabs, madlabs etc,
The workshops are growing out of schools.
We need not to be threatened by the democratization of technological skills that were once the monopoly of the designers and engineers. On the contrary, we need to embrace it. Instead of bringing the workshops in schools it is time to bring the schools in the workshops. Take the opportunity to transform the workshops into a space of encounter. Invite politics, economics, sociologists (…) to become participants.
Doing so, not only to produce new meaningful knowledge but to assure the continued relevancy of our own discipline.
It is the contextualization of our reality, confronted to other realities that will help us develop the criticality we need to stay relevant within our own practice.
Because the design profession, nowadays, works in casi constant collaboration, it needs to start within our education.
Collaboration does not, in my opinion, only represent the idea of working together with an other entity, but to be understood, in other words to be ‘intellectually accessible’ is already a form of collaboration.
Communication collaboration – Emergency#5
To go on, considering the urgent need for greater communication collaboration within design, or to put it differently, our inability to communicate design as a relevant cultural practice.
Indeed it seems that design is repeatidly misjudged based on an outdated vision which considers it only for its commercial purpose.
We fail to prove the relevancy of our profession. It is proven once more when, regardless of the growing cultural economical context, Great Britain expresses its intention to remove art and design courses from the Ebacc.
As creative, we have failed to prove culture’s essential role within contemporary society. Furthermore, as designers, we have failed to communicate design as culture.
Because the comfort of governments subsudies enabled us to live in an autarchic bubble, over the past decades, design has somehow disconnected itself from the ‘real world’.
As government are stepping out, we can no longer afford to rely on the hermetic cell that the ‘design world’ has become.
We need to reframe design’s purposes.
More importantly we need to re-communicate design’s functions.
Actually, the communication disorder that the design profession suffers from is not only an issue of our generation. In 1964 the problem was already addressed in the first things first manifesto(7).
Signed by many well known graphic designer of the time, it stated the following:
« We hope that our society will tire of gimmick merchants, status salesmen and
hidden persuaders, and that the prior call on our skills will be for worthwhile purposes. »
Revisited in 2000, the second first things first manifesto had similar concerns towards design being used only for advertising purposes. The new text ended as such:
« In 1964, 22 visual communicators signed the original call for our skills to be put
to worthwhile use. With the explosive growth of global commercial culture, their message has only grown more urgent. Today, we renew their manifesto in expectation that no more decades will pass before it is taken to heart. »
Yet again, the 2000 version seems to have missed its point.
It is time to go beyond these manifestos, which even when re-edited continue to address their own audience.
React when the novelist Tom Campbell publishes an article entitled; “The end of the creative classes in sight.”(8) in which he argues that the creative class risks the same fate as the British working class.
In a comparison between the creative practice and the working forces he exposes the following similarities;
“the characteristics of the unskilled service sector: uncertain career progression, low levels of investment in training, precarious working conditions, eroding wages, and the endemic use of unpaid interns and casual labor.”
Adding that because high-skilled occupations can now be mechanized and therefore outsourced, it predicts the end of the creative class.
“Much is made of the ‘creative process’ – but it is just that, a process, and as such it can also be an algorithm.”
It is as if saying that designers can be replaced by pairing algorithm and rapid prototyping technologies.
Such argument reduces design to mere styling.
Which I must agree, is the way it seems to be perceived by a majority of the non-designer audience.
To illustrate my point; when I tell people I study design, they are excited by the idea that I draw chairs and cars. It is only after an argumented discussion on the added values of design, and its crucial role as a critical tool within society, that people finally start believing I am an artist… an artist who makes chairs.
I have to admit I am not the best communicator – but ask any student following a critical design course to explain to their neighbor what is it they do; I believe you will witness similar awkward justifications.
Last year already, one of the former contextual design master students, Alicia Ongay-Perez was questioning the values of design through the relationships of concept and context.
This research may have already come to your attention and actually, if I mention the neighbor here it is because, in one of her videos, she brought her ‘Inside Out’(9) project to her neighbor to see how it would be perceived by a non-designer.
Here is a transcribed abstract of the recorded conversation.
Alicia «- (…) It’s an inside out lemon squeezer.
Rita -These are strange ideas, aren’t they? Are these all your ideas?
-Yeah this is my work for my Masters
-And did you get marks for doing this?
-Yes I got a very high mark for that one
-No this group of objects
They thought that was quite good, very good actually.
-Who are these people that think they’re very good? Have they bought one? »
Indee who are these people?
We are creatives and we use design to express a critical view on the world around us.
Design is cultural research.
We need to aim for it to be perceived as such.
Design within design schools needs to reach for a wider audience. Get out of schools, out of the design world to confront plural realities.
Send design-school projects out of the limbo they float in, going from classroom presentation to portfolio archives.
We need to re-communicate design as a cultural practice.
For this, we need to affirm design schools as cultural producers.
We need to aim for greater communication collaboration with the ‘outside’ world.
The way design is perceived in a wider environment, by non-designers needs to be re-considered, starting from within schools.
Reevaluate success – Emergency#6
To achieve that aim, we need to start by re-considering the way design is perceived from within the design field.
In other words, we need to reevaluate the notion of success in design. Which brings me back to the start of this letter, as it is once again about defining the purpose of design education; between training ground, and safe cell.
When it comes to design success I cannot ommit to mention Timo de Rijk’s recent article « Is Dutch Design Education on a Dead-end Track? »(10). In my opinion it touched upon this very topic. It must have certainly already come to your attention as it sparked a rather lively online debate.
Placing the argument of success on a functionality level de Rijk argues that
« If the “Mine Kafon” had been a good piece of design as a demolisher of land mines, it would have been bought by the Pentagon. But it wasn’t. Instead it was bought by the Museum of Modern Art. »
to which Jan Boelen (Head of the Social master department at the Design Academy Eindhoven) responded;
“2008 showed us that, the cultural, the sustainable, the human value of things must also be taken into account. I think Timo is too stuck in a traditional way of thinking. Design is so broad now, but he seems to only acknowledge a 20th century paradigm.”
Indeed, design has become broad, it is why there is an urgent need to reevaluate success assessment, thus is order to be consistent with contemporary design practices.
The issue here seems not to be on the project itself but on the way it is communicated. It seems to be once again a matter of mis-communication.
I could develop here a complete grand complot theory accusing the media of staging design based on the wrong values. Or as part of the design community, I can question the mixed message we send out.
We claim to make culture and yet we organize graduation shows as ‘pop up’ market places, for eventual buyers. As in car salons, students’ projects are presented as finished products, ready to hit the market. Success assessment comes to be based on whether a ‘piece’ is sold at the issue of the show.
When not seen as commercial, school shows become entertainment.
But this opens to a series of new emergencies which I won’t go deeper into here.
Going back to the answer to de Rijk’s articles, it later on states that Urgan Bey together with others, point that this issue lies at the core of the DAE’s current troubles.
And who is eventually chosen, as the new creative director will reveal a lot about how this issue will be dealt with.
And as it comes to you again the circle is complete.
This letter and this academic year have both started with Dutch design media battle.
On one side the temporary departure of the heads have led to the quest for you; ‘the new creative director’, on the other ; de Rijk’s article has led to the exposed need to re-think education purposes.
Now that you are here, we can start with re-inventing design education.
These are the main causes of my education frustration.
I would like to add more to this letter, but my monologue has to end at some point and give room for a conversation to take place.
So dear new creative director, as you come in with ‘the new vision’ I would be interested to know if some of the points I raised here are parts of your interests as well.
As a student and a designer, I believe in institutions’ potential to evolve based on what happens within them.
I want to be considered as an active participant of my education. And need to be given the trust to experiment with my projects as much as with my education.
As I will be asked to define my own profession in the near future, I wish to start by defining my own formation.
Schools need not only to be more attentive to the contemporary world but to strive for greater communication collaboration.
Most importantly, we, students and professionals, need to re-affirm design schools as places to produce culture. Constantly bringing existing knowledge into question,
schools need to dare to create again.
It is because I think the changes must come through the making, and because I believe they will come from the students that I want to affirm my position as a student.
We need to take education matters in our hands, away from the academics’ monopoly.
It is time to reshape structure, redefine content, reinforce community, and reinvest
It starts with the students,
It starts within schools.
Looking forward to your response,
Author: Eugenie Delariviere
Date: April 19th, 2013
Eugenie Delariviere’s research website: http://ondesigneducation.tumblr.com/
About Eugenie Delariviere:
Eugenie Delariviere is a young designer interested in how students can be the motor of active changes within their education. In her research she looks at how can educational systems be rethought from within, focusing on putting forward the vision and interests of the ‘new generation’. She has moderated, co-organised and participated in various symposiums on the future of design, and is now a mentor at the Rietveld Academy.
This is (not) a manifesto is a manifesto following the divergent opinions expressed on education following ’Dutch Resign Week’*
Based on the reactions posted on the Facebook group (Design Academy Student 2012) created by students to coordinate discussions; comments were gathered, sorted in categories (students, heads/mentors, DAE, outsiders) cut and reorganized to create a manifesto free for appropriation.
*In July 2012 the three heads of the masters program of the Design Academy Eindhoven resigned leading to numerous education discussions within and beyond the academy’s walls.
(1) Jan Boelen, Louise Schouwenberg, Joost Grootens; Heads of the Design Academy Eindhoven’s masters programs, to the members of the Executive Board, Resignation Letter, July 5th 2012.
(2) Member of the executive board, computer room meeting, July 6th 2012
(3) Jim Caroll, «65% of the kids in preschool today will work in jobs or careers that don’t yet exist», http://www.jimcarroll.com/2008/05/65-of-the-kids-in-preschool-today-will-work-in-jobs-or-careers-that-dont-yet-exist/#.UXQ8uMr05q4
(4) Dietrich Lemke, « Mourning Bologna », http://www.e-flux.com/journal/mourning-bologna/, 2010.
(5) Jan Boelen, Louise Schouwenberg, Joost Grootens; Heads of the Design Academy Eindhoven’s masters programs, to the members of the Executive Board, Resignation Letter, July 5th 2012.
(6) Walter Gropius, Manifesto, 1919.
(7) First things First, 1964.
(8) Tom Campbell, The end of the creative classes in sights, http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture-professionals- network/culture-professionals-blog/2013/mar/04/technology-end-of-creative-classes 2013.
(9) Alicia Ongay-Perrez, Contextualising Inside Out I, http://aliciaongayperez.com/Contextualising-Inside-Out-I
(10) Timo de Rijk, Is Dutch Design Education on a Dead-end Track? , http://www.design.nl/item/is_dutch_de sign_education_on_a_dead_end_track, 2013