So the quarter has finally come to an end. And it was nip and tuck right up to the end on Friday. At the last minute, or so it seemed, a new assignment fell to my desk. Seems that every quarter at NewSchool of Architecture & Design, students put together a portfolio presentation that represents the work done over the past quarter. It is meant to be a record of the work and really helps the student to analyze their progress over the quarter. The studio instructors also use it to recall the work they have reviewed in the various critiques over the quarter (ie: ones grade comes more-or-less directly from this process).

During the Wednesday session of our final week, after the fire station was due, we were treated to a lecture on the merits of "In Design," an Adobe program designed for the tasks at hand in creating a book or magazine. I was panic stricken as I thought I was expected to put together a "book" of my work. Well, some of that panic was appropriate. However, in lieu of learning a new, and quite sophisticated, program I did a MS PowerPoint presentation which accomplished the same end. ....without the two day panic of learning new software.

So when I finally get around to publishing some photos, you will see how it all came out. I was working on tutorials for Adobe Photoshop last night. Interestingly, there is a culture at NewSchool which I find challenges my ethics. I bought a student version of Adobe Photoshop. I went through the rigmarole of getting vetted by Adobe as a bonafied and legitimate student. And quite a rigmarole it was. They must have thought that somebody who wanted to pay for the software was actually trying to cheat them (???).

Perhaps the folks at Adobe might have been surprised by the idea that a student actually wanted to purchase their software. This is because they probably know that, apparently, most students rip-off the software from other students. Which brings me to the point of ethics and workability.

It seems to me that a system which condones or tolerates the, patently illegal, pirating of software is on the wrong side of the ethical and workability paradigm. That this same system is promoting the proprietary nature of designers' solutions is paradoxical, at the very least. I wonder about a workable solution to this problem (???).

The software which students learn in schools like NewSchool of Architecture & Design is expensive. There is no question that the software manufacturers are interested in leading students to the conclusion that their software is the "best thing since sliced bread" when it comes to solutions for some particular set of architectural or graphic communication problems. And, I am quite certain, that there is some advantage for the software companies considering lenience when it comes to enforcing copyright laws. No software company would want the bad PR of coming down on the future market for their products.

Some software companies take the approach of providing the software free of charge to bonafide students. This lessens the pressure for illegal pirating and promotes the use of the software in an environment of trust and mutual gain. For eventually, the student becomes a professional and is in an environment where resources can be made available. It would only be prudent for the student to recommend that software "X" be purchased. After all, it is the one software they will know inside and out.

It seems to me that it behooves the institutions of learning to band together to demand this approach from the software companies they serve. To assume that students will always do the right thing is assuming too much. It is not unlike assuming that a dog will sit back, not lunging for the food on the coffee table during the only moment when no one is looking. Students are a product of the environment in which they are tutored. There is no getting around this.