EVOLVING WITH THE ROOTS

A glimpse into the ever-changing design education system in India

Lolita Dutta

Design Educator, Speaker, Writer and Consultant for design thinking and critical thinking.

Design educator, spatial designer, design speaker, writer and consultant for design and critical thinking. Lolita Dutta is a design professional with over three decades of experience in visual design and has taught design in almost all the premier design institutes. She has also pursued exhibition and visual design with government agencies, corporates, NGOs and other renowned establishments. With her keen interest in academics, travelling, and storytelling she enjoys multiple creative pursuits. Now embark on a journey to contribute as a teacher to help create responsible young designers.

In the 1920s, Rabindranath Tagore and his family were on the lookout for a sylvan space to nurture the growth of arts, performing arts, and literature. They stumbled upon a place surrounded by nature, on deep red soil, and began a unique form of creative learning in an open, calm, and peaceful setting, establishing Shantiniketan.

When we trace the history of the initial venture of Shantiniketan, it may give rise to what may be the beginning of design education in India. Following this, the National Institute of Design was founded in the 1960s. NID’s discipline was heavily influenced by the western ideas of Bauhaus and Ulm. There was a specific structure that approached design as a “functional domain”. However, to my good fortune, I was one of the early batches of NID and had the prerogative to be a part of the design education process.

A lot of emphases was given to the idea of design being a “process” although much of it may have been “function” driven. This is becoming a crucial element, not just in design but across various fields where “design thinking” is consistently encouraged. There has been a drastic change since the time we sat outdoors, debated, and conceptualised design and even the way it was taught. Having seen the trajectory of design education, it is simply a problem-solving process, which was decoded way back in the 1970s. Analog gave way to digital, the gears shifted, we went into overdrive, and in some way, the acceleration of design began.

Design is now viewed as being more prolific, user-centric, and made for simple delivery across institutions in India. Nearly all institutions follow the time-tested techniques of the early NID paradigm, but each has developed parallel pedagogies that suit new methods, means, and business models. But have we truly gone over the boundary? Have we addressed the pertinent issues which ail our education system? I think not. We have not been critical design educators or thinkers and are still confined by narrow walls, following a linear pattern blindly. It is not easy to overhaul an entire system but we need to be mindful of the shifting winds, the advent of technology, and new dimensions.

Digital technology has invaded and rendered many things obsolete but it has greatly benefitted learners, who now have a plethora of information at their fingertips. There is a benefit to this and a drawback when seen objectively. Although encouraging easy access to knowledge is a good thing, research and concepts are often relegated to the backseat.

Design education is undergoing many changes and most notably, the startling number of institutions that have emerged across the country, each with a distinct curriculum of its own. On closer inspection, we will find similarities to the age-old systems and content with different nomenclature.

Our country is at the threshold of change, education is on the verge of change even more, and design education is the new buzzword.

I find many students genuinely lack awareness of the tribulations of learning design. Many believe it to be “software-based” and see it as a loophole to escape an examination system. Real design learning is more complex than we think. It requires dedication, aptitude, and most importantly, a learning mentality. Most universities have trouble getting students to imbibe this culture. So, do we blame the students? The system? or the institution? It’s a challenging decision that needs a frequent revival of thought.

To learn design, one must be sensitive, open-minded, and adaptive. Here we have to push beyond boundaries, cut barriers, swim deep rivers and walk the extra mile. The curriculum must evolve, keeping in mind the learner and the educator. In my opinion, design cannot be taught solely in the classroom. Travel, observation, exploration, being outdoors and studying culture, history, and technology are all necessary. Simply embracing AI and what it does can be detrimental to our learning growth and would render us mediocre. We must have the wherewithal to strike a balance between technology, deep-rooted concept and personal viewpoints. Only then will design and its curriculum truly go beyond what we can now see and will allow us to traverse the unknown.