Students beginning degrees in graphic design and illustration at the University of Brighton in 2002-2004 believed that the purpose of historical and critical studies (HCS) was largely ‘to look at the best examples of design and illustration’, ‘be inspired by the best designers and illustrators’ and ‘learn from the past’.
It was clear that the expectation was for a 20-week series of slide shows and the top-down formation of a canon of ‘good’ or ‘great’ design and illustration. Enthusiasm was not particularly high, and experiences of HCS on foundation courses had not helped matters.
Since 2001, the Brighton HCS course has been moving away from the ‘typical’ curriculum in order to avoid ‘chronology, “hero” biography and anecdotes’ (Triggs 1995) and the apparent obsession with canon, hierarchy and ‘distinction’ (Bourdieu 1986) that appears to stem from a relocation of the discipline from design-as-communication to design-as- art (Baldwin and Roberts 2005).
Anecdotal evidence from courses around the UK and in other countries suggests that HCS, in its various guises, is viewed as an ‘extra’, the part of the course that makes a degree a degree, but which has no practical benefit to students’ careers. Consequently, absence from HCS courses is generally high and often tacitly sanctioned by staff.
However, the change of approach at Brighton – away from history as names, dates and slides and towards history-as-effect – appears to have resulted in a change of attitude among students, increased attendance, and an improvement in their self-initiated integration between theory and practice.
In this case study the HCS team explain the strategies that led to these results, and speculate on what work would need to be undertaken to turn observed and anecdotal results into a repeatable model for future years.