Kathryn Moore

Kathryn Moore Course Director Postgraduate Diploma/MA Landscape Architecture, The Birmingham School of Architecture and Landscape, University of Central England


Resarch:
The existence of visual thinking is a given starting point in nearly all discussions about creativity and design. However, the main conclusion of my research is that the concept of visual thinking is a philosophical construct and not a foundational truth. A radical pragmatic analysis of the visual redefines the relationship presumed to exist between the senses, language and intelligence, making it possible to provide an educational rationale for what are widely held to be subjective, innate abilities. Dispensing with many of the intractable problems of design theory and philosophy, this enables a rigorous debate to take place about the artistic, conceptual and cultural significance of the way things look. Set within landscape architecture and architecture the research crosses the boundaries between philosophy, psychology, design theory, educational theory and art education. Drawing on the work of the early American pragmatists, Ryle (Ryle 1949 reprinted 1990), Austin (Austin 1964), Rorty (Rorty 1980; Rorty 1982) and Putnam (Putnam 1999), it sets itself apart from the traditions of analytical philosophy, evolutionary psychology and phenomenology which currently underpin much of design discourse. A well-established national and international network of academics supports the development of this work from within psychology, philosophy, art education, design studies, architecture, landscape architecture and cognitive science.

Tentative topics
Connecting form and substance
The stalking ground for aesthetic sensibility defined by Kant, Baumgarten and those who succeed them is the foggy perceptual world where “impressions”, sense data, qualia, experiences or brain processes are clarified, ordered or structured. Within this interface insinuated between us and the external world, something, (it changes depending on the fashion, time and context but is invariably universal or archetypal in nature) is thought to stimulate the senses to provoke an aesthetic response. The mechanics of the process remains unknown.

The notion of this kind of interface is part of what Putnam describes as a “disastrous idea that has haunted Western philosophy since the seventeenth century” (Putnam 1999). Taking the lead from James (1884) and Dewey(1934), both of whom criticise the ‘psychological fallacy’ underpinning aesthetic discourse, it is possible to examine the implications of design theory and education without the causal theory of perception. This requires considering a world without universal truths, recognising the elusively ambiguity of language, the intelligent sensibility of feelings and accepting the idea that the main philosophical basis for distinct conceptual spheres and different ways of knowing no longer stands. Dispensing with the sensory interface, makes it possible as Dewey suggests for there to be, “perfect integration of “manner and content, form and substance”. On this basis it is possible to teach the art of design and significantly improve design skill.

Based on several years experience in the design studio, this approach has far reaching implications, which would be interesting to explore in a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary context.

---