Having made my way through Revell’s lecture, it’s become apparent that the persistence of SCD to distinguish itself from other fields of (and around) design emerges from its greatest proponent’s presentations. What I mean is that Revell’s lecture, whilst thorough and quite well-referenced, still manages to come off a bit ‘quick’, though not necessarily “hand-wavy”. Of course, this interpretation may easily be the result of having ready through it in under an hour, rather than having heard it in it’s original 2-hour glory. But alas, tha may just be the point. Revell’s lecture is quite informative to read, but I would also imagine it being quite exhausting to sit through. Why? More specifically, why did Revell need to persist through nearly every definition, example, and expertise of SCD? Perhaps it’s because it’s to build credibility for the discipline (or his own credentials), but perhaps it’s because without so many examples, without a “history”, an audience may simply not “get it”. That’s alright, the field has an arguably short history, compared to other subsets of the design discipline–but this brings me to another (almost counter-) point: still, despite its short history, it’s been persistent so long, it’s beginning to prevail, and no longer just within the walls of the RCA. Audiences are interested. Designers are interested. As such, whilst Revell’s extensive notations are of great investment for any individual to learn more, it’s his pacing through the various terms, definitions, examples, and expertises of SCD that we learn more from.