Rhode Island School of Design - Portfolio Yearbook (Providence, RI)

Page 16 text:

12 DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION INDUSTRIAL DESIGN, as a recognized field of pro- fessional design endeavor, is the junior member of the family of design arts. The date of its birth is obscure. Some say 1925, others 1935, while some folks even claim that it has existed only since World War II. (R.1.S.D.’s first graduate in the established major was in 1942.) During November (’55) I attended a meeting of industria! designers and industrial design edu- cators at the Philadelphia Museum School of Art. Able men from leading colleges and schools presented thoughtful and thought provoking pa- pers, followed by discussion characterized by intense convictions and differing philosophies. Notwithstanding the obvious differences in educational philosophies advocated by many of the conferees, there appeared to be comparative agreement on what “industria! design”’ is. “Industrial design” has become an idiom. Formerly it has meant many things to many peo- ple. To those resorting to the authority of Web- ster, the choice was so broad that it could have included a penal code (!), design involving manual labor, or just having to do with industry. In practice “industrial design” has become a use- ful and definitive term. Many definitions exist. Most authoritative definitions include considera- tions for human satisfactions, man-machine or man-environment relationship, and MASS PRODUCTION. Excluded from the field are the so-called arts and crafts. “Industrial design” is not simply 3-D design. The usefulness of understanding conveyed by these definitions lies in the possible identification of designers especially equipped to deal with the typical problems of mass production industries. There is no inference intended that an industrial designer must confine his efforts to mass produc- tion fields, nor that designers identified prin- cipally with the fine arts, the graphic arts, or architecture may not successfully perform in the field of industrial design.

Page 15 text:

FRESHMAN FOUNDATION “O This Learning, What a Thing it is!” The Taming of the Shrew “O, this learning what a thing it is!” How hard it is and with what toil, amid the shattered castles of our old beliefs, we come to know the complex alphabet of a new articulateness, to find there is great virtue in simplicity, to see what we had not seen be- fore— a strange arithmetic of line, the line of form, the form of space and the all pervading color of our environment— to be aware, yet not to know; to wonder, yet no answers to find; to feel the rankling shock of self responsibility without the soft security of precise judgment and reward for what we thought was meant for us to do; when what was meant was only that we should come to know that Learning is but a portion of ourselves and will be, to some degree, forever with us, if we but learn to see. SAMUEL F. HERSHEY Chairman, Freshman Foundation I]

Page 17 text:

The divergent educational philosophies ex- pressed at the Philadelphia meeting were not new. In 1944, it was my privilege to preside at the first session of the conference in New York from which came the National Association of Schools of Design. The purpose, discussion, and spirit of that 1944 meeting were so identical with those of the recent 1955 Philadelphia meeting that I was tempted to use my published report of the earlier meeting to explain the latter. At both meetings, sides were drawn separating those believing in impersonal idealism on one hand from a perso nal objectivity on the other. I am glad both philosophies exist. Each de- serves support and opposition to ensure healthy maturity. There is no question that the programs of the two groups of impersonal idealism will occasion- ally graduate an individual of enormous influence and ability. It is equally true that the over- whelming majority of students in those programs will leave their design schools and design careers simultaneously. It is hard for me to think that a fragment of an unattainable goal is as good for an individual as a broad foundation upon which that individual may build. HAROLD PRESCOTT ASHTON, JR., Providence, Rhode Island. BFA—Indus- trial Design. Industrial Design Society 2, 3, 4. CLARICE DAVIS, Randolph, Massachusetts. BFA—Industrial Design. Industrial Design Society 2, 3, 4, Secretary 3; Student Council 4. The potential genius who graduates from either program, may usually thank his Maker in- stead of his instructor for success. (Although we all like to take the credit. ) JOHN E. ALCOTT Head, Division of Industrial Production THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL DESIGN The course of study provided by the Department of Industrial Design is based on a program having as its purpose the training of the student in order that he may take his place in the professional field of appearance de- sign of mass produced products. To accomplish this, the course is designed to develop skills and technical under- standing with which the designer will be able to portray his visualization of an object’s appearance for the purpose of communicating with others, as well as with himself, the product of his tmaginings. In combination with learning skills and familiarizing himself with the techniques related to material usage, methods of manufacturing and merchandising, the stu- dent is exposed to situations typical of those encountered by the professional designer. This experience prepares the student to evaluate his work objectively and to develop a responsive attitude toward the demands which result from a realistic appraisal of the designer’s responsibilit y— to his client and to the consumer of the product he designs. RALPH E. KRUCK Department Head of Industrial Design 13