Stories have a shape. It starts with good fortune at the top and ill fortune at the bottom. It can start with good fortune, drop to ill fortune when they run into trouble, and then peak back up again to good fortune when the problem is solved. Another shape of a story could be what is known as the 'boy meets girl' story. It starts in between ill and good fortune. Then something great happens to rocket him or her to good fortune. Then something bad happens and it is then solved. Back to good fortune. Another story is the Cinderella story. This starts at the bottom, in ill fortune. The character then rises up towards good fortune, before dropping to the middle, in between the ill and good fortune. Next they go up to the highest good fortune. These are all familiar story shapes to most people. Todorov's theory of narrative can come into play here. Todorov said that there are three stages of narrative. The first is equilibrium. This is a state where everything is okay, the main characters are fine and everything seems to be going well. Next enters disequilibrium. This is where the problem occurs and everything gets shaken up. The characters fight against this disequilibrium, with a climax, before arriving at the new equilibrium. This is state where everything has returned, not quite, back to normal. Someone may have died, relationships changed or other unforgettable things may have happened to the character during the stage of disequilibrium, making it impossible to get back to the original equilibrium. This is something I learnt during my time at college studying an A-Level in Film Studies and have been able to apply it to almost all stories with linear structure that I have come across. There are lots of other theories about narrative, as explained by Dan in this lecture, but I feel this is one of the easiest to understand.
We then watched a film called Whopper Virgins. This was a film created by Burger King. In the "documentary", researchers from Burger King went to places where the people apparently had never heard of McDonald's or Burger King or experienced them and asked them to do a taste test on a Big Mac and a Whopper to see which they thought was better. They claim they could not do this in a westernised country, such as the US because the people there have been exposed to way too much advertising from each of the rival companies.They then claimed that the Whopper won the taste test and got a Burger King broiler shipped out to be able to give burgers to the masses. There were a lot of questions after this viewing. One of the first things the majority agreed on is that we felt uncomfortable watching it. Somebody made a point of saying that it was like watching a culture becoming eroded as it is introduced to western food. I agree with this statement and also believe it is unfair as they are more underdeveloped than the western world, making it highly unlikely that they will receive food like this again.
The story is about finding out which burger is better. The Whopper won, which makes this look like more of a marketing campaign than a documentary. However, due to editing, we never see any of the results. This means the public just have to take it as gospel from these people that the Whopper is better. This scheme cost millions of dollars so of course Burger King's Whopper is going to at least look like it won. Another problem arose in the form of the regulations of the taste test. These people are meant to have never come into contact with these franchises before, however, Burger King claimed that the burgers had to be eaten within 15 minutes of the purchase. How would this be possible, it doesn't seem to add up. The people on the video use mitigated language. They say perhaps and maybe. This shows they could be wrong.
The next thing we discussed is how they gave the people in the test cutlery but then told them to use their hands. We see people looking uncomfortable and like they don't know how to eat a burger. This also makes them feel incompetent. I think this is ethically wrong. I myself would not like to be seen looking that way on film. I felt like the people where almost victimised. Also, it is unclear as to why they kept focussing on the feelings of the people after the burgers and their reactions. This moves us more away from the main point. It seems like they are trying to prove that a burger is a luxury item in the west.
The 'dramatic' climax come in the form of them not having the right adapter for the gas for the broiler. The dramatic peak should be the results of the test but instead it mitigates the truth to create the structure of the story.
Ben Harmans wheel is the narrative theory we used to breakdown this story. We start with the main point - the whopper is a culinary delight in the US. The problem is, is it better than the Big Mac? Then they do the taste test and get the results. They then say there was a valuable cultural exchange but the native people still like their own food, nobody was converted to westernised ways. However, the rules of the story are broken. The climax should have been that the Big Mac was going to win. They obviously had to manufacture their own narrative curve in the form of the propane gas adapter because they could not put in a section where the Big Mac could have looked better. If they did this, it would not work as effective advertising.
It was a viral marketing campaign, which means it was all used online. It was meant to have been shared online through social networking, not targeted to one specific person. I believe this was definitely not an exchange like they said. I, as a viewer, have not got anything from the film. I just think that the people were exploited.
From this lecture, I learnt a bit more about narrative structure. I can definitely apply some of this to my own work, especially with fictional film.
Monday 7 January 2013
A Discussion of Ethics Within Design - Stuart Cunningham
Our Lecturer started by saying that our expectations may differ from his as he comes from a computer science background. I was a little wary at first due to me being a Creative Media student. I knew that this could become more of a debate as different people have different ideas on what ethics are and what is or is not ethical. Because of this, being ethical is not something that can easily be taught. It is up to us as designers to form our own standpoints on ethics. This could be based on morals or religion. So what are ethics ? Beliefs? Right and Wrong? Behaviour? Guidelines in society? This is a matter of opinion. Some people see ethics as a good thing, some as a bad thing. Everybody ethical belief system is different from the next persons. We are all brought up to believe different things. Something I think is bad somebody else could perceive as an excellent idea. I liked the way the lecturer kept reinstating the fact that he was not there to change our ethical views. His personal view is that ethics are the things that you're bound to do. They are some form of responsibility that you give to yourself. In my opinion, ethics are a sense of right or wrong. I would like to do good with my work rather than bad. This is also linked to my morals. I agree with the lecturer that morals affect oneself whereas ethics effect others.
Ethics help us make decisions. Making ethical decisions is not always easy. When it is clear what outcome is right and which is wrong, it's simple to make an ethical decision. It becomes more clouded judgement when it's not so certain. This is called an ethical dilemma.These dilemmas make designers question what they are doing. It is usually just a gut feeling in your ethical system. These can pop up at any point in a career. A decision could cause a knock on effect. We must consider the after effects of a decision. Ethics are so difficult because they involve humans. Subjective information is open to interpretation, making it difficult to find an all rounded ethical standpoint. This is particularly true in art and design. I may think a photograph I have taken sends one message, the message I was trying to portray to my audience, yet another individual may interpret it to mean something completely different. Humans add this subjective factor. This complicates things as one persons subjective viewpoint will vary from somebody elses, as demonstrated in the example I have just given. We have feelings, we are not all logical and deductive. Our ethical standpoint can be influenced by other peoples circumstances. The example we were given was if we were a manager and had to make somebody redundant, who would we choose? If it was between a single mother of 3 or somebody who's wife owns their own very successful business, I know that I would keep the mother on my team. Should we be influenced by this ? Each individual would answer this differently.
Practical ethics are what we have and apply to the real world. This how we solve problems with fairness. Descriptive Ethics is the human side of it, the subjective factor. Trying to understand this is hard. It's like a debate. One of the examples we were given as to how subjective factors come into ethics is the big abortion debate. Is it wrong or right, should it be illegal or stay legal? When asked this question, the participants of the lecture seemed equally spread for and against. This exercise helped me to understand subjectiveness a little more. I am effected by ethics, as is my 'subject'. This could be my client or people I research. We all have different perspectives. Even people who aren't directly involved can be affected. Society is difficult to predict. Not everybody can be pleased all of the time.
Ethics can be used as a marketing tool. A prime example of this is Fairtrade. Increasingly more and more products are being pumped out with the Fairtrade badge on it. It could be argued that it is ethically wrong to use this for marketing. People shouldn't have to say that there stuff is ethically sourced, it should be anyway. People like to think that they are doing good by buying these products.
As designers, everything we do is for the public. This is why ethics are extremely important in my line of work. I should have a debate with myself before making decisions to get things out as best as I would like. We have a threshold of what is right or wrong. we can waver each way. I need to decide whether or not my work will look ethically correct to most people. An example of this is when I take a candid picture of someone. Should I publish it? If so, where? does the circumstance of the image provoke a conflict of morals? How far we push the boundaries is up to the individual.
Ethics help us make decisions. Making ethical decisions is not always easy. When it is clear what outcome is right and which is wrong, it's simple to make an ethical decision. It becomes more clouded judgement when it's not so certain. This is called an ethical dilemma.These dilemmas make designers question what they are doing. It is usually just a gut feeling in your ethical system. These can pop up at any point in a career. A decision could cause a knock on effect. We must consider the after effects of a decision. Ethics are so difficult because they involve humans. Subjective information is open to interpretation, making it difficult to find an all rounded ethical standpoint. This is particularly true in art and design. I may think a photograph I have taken sends one message, the message I was trying to portray to my audience, yet another individual may interpret it to mean something completely different. Humans add this subjective factor. This complicates things as one persons subjective viewpoint will vary from somebody elses, as demonstrated in the example I have just given. We have feelings, we are not all logical and deductive. Our ethical standpoint can be influenced by other peoples circumstances. The example we were given was if we were a manager and had to make somebody redundant, who would we choose? If it was between a single mother of 3 or somebody who's wife owns their own very successful business, I know that I would keep the mother on my team. Should we be influenced by this ? Each individual would answer this differently.
Practical ethics are what we have and apply to the real world. This how we solve problems with fairness. Descriptive Ethics is the human side of it, the subjective factor. Trying to understand this is hard. It's like a debate. One of the examples we were given as to how subjective factors come into ethics is the big abortion debate. Is it wrong or right, should it be illegal or stay legal? When asked this question, the participants of the lecture seemed equally spread for and against. This exercise helped me to understand subjectiveness a little more. I am effected by ethics, as is my 'subject'. This could be my client or people I research. We all have different perspectives. Even people who aren't directly involved can be affected. Society is difficult to predict. Not everybody can be pleased all of the time.
Ethics can be used as a marketing tool. A prime example of this is Fairtrade. Increasingly more and more products are being pumped out with the Fairtrade badge on it. It could be argued that it is ethically wrong to use this for marketing. People shouldn't have to say that there stuff is ethically sourced, it should be anyway. People like to think that they are doing good by buying these products.
As designers, everything we do is for the public. This is why ethics are extremely important in my line of work. I should have a debate with myself before making decisions to get things out as best as I would like. We have a threshold of what is right or wrong. we can waver each way. I need to decide whether or not my work will look ethically correct to most people. An example of this is when I take a candid picture of someone. Should I publish it? If so, where? does the circumstance of the image provoke a conflict of morals? How far we push the boundaries is up to the individual.
Green Thinking - The Sustainable Lie
This lecture was all about "thinking green". It put questions to us as to how we can have less impact on the planet in our design processes. This ties in to the lecture we had been given previously about T-Shaped design, as we touched briefly on pollution issues. Some facts and figures I learnt were astounding. If 6-8 billion people were to become westernised, the planet would not be able to handle it. Some countries are heading this way and it is becoming a worrying problem. This is due to the amount we, as westernised communities, consume. This means that 20% of the worlds population is consuming 80% of the worlds resources. This 20% is the westernised countries, such as us in the UK. If more people become westernised, there will be a shortage of resources. This would pave the way to and ecological disaster. The other side of the argument is that if the underdeveloped countries do not succeed in becoming westernised, the disaster will be that of a social nature.This is due to the fact that a globalised society cannot support this situation. This relates back to us because 80% of the environmental impact is decided at the design stage. This impact is huge. On average, a new product is created every 3 minutes in the world. each new product has waste, and insufficient use of precious resources.This could be water, energy or natural resources. On top of this, $400 billion is spent each year on advertising. This is totally an unsustainable habit. In my opinion, advertising goes way beyond what it is supposed to. With the internet and the viral age we are in, why does there need to be so much advertising using paper and other resources like it ? I think it's time that designers in advertising look at things like this.
I found the next part of the seminar the most interesting. We are often told, in society, that certain things are "evil" or "bad". We are made to feel responsible for the bad things happening to the planet. those who are not in the know believe this and can feel guilty about it. Take flying, for instance. We are told that air travel creates 2-4% of the worlds carbon emissions. However, the cement industry alone creates more than 5% of global emissions. The reason flying is targeted more than cement is that it is more 'glamorous' as a campaign. It looks aesthetically better to show, say a TV commercial, with a jet flying across the screen than to show a pile of cement. Also, the figure of how much carbon is emitted by air travel is distorted, depending on who is publicising the figures. The travel company themselves would go for the lower figure of 2%, were as an opposing force would go for the higher number of 4%. Cement companies are happy about this as they are not getting any unwanted attention. However, it has been estimated that 20 cement plants will project 2.5 billion tonnes of carbon emission annually by 2050. This works out at 20 times more than the UK government has promised will be created by this time. Personally, I think that it is shocking that all of this goes on, covered from the knowledge of the main population. I believe we should be entitled to all of the facts before making up our own minds.
We are so comfortable with our lifestyles in westernised Britain that we are reluctant to change. I think we all play a part in carbon emissions and we know that we do. A laptop generates 4000 times its own weight in waste carbon in it's lifetime. Yet the majority of households have at least one laptop, some even more. In my house alone there are four. Ceramic mugs need to be used 1,006 times just to be worth the energy spent making them. Then there is the war against carrier bags. We are told we should use paper bags or reusable fabric bags ans they are greener than polythene (plastic) bags. However, studies have shown that it takes 4 times as much energy to manufacture a paper bag than a plastic bag. it also uses 20 times more water to be recycled than plastic does. So it looks like Fabric bags would be best. This could be the case, but the EnviroAgency found that a Fabric bag would have to be used 131 times to make it worthwhile. Only this amount of use would make it better than using plastic. The biggest amount of carbon emissions in the UK is caused by ExxonMobil. BP is twice as efficient.
We, as designers, are in a position to make a difference. We can influence our consumers with which materials we us, how we source them, how they are constructed and how efficient they are. Basically put, the seminar concluded by telling us that green ethics is complex. I agree fully with this statement and believe that I have learnt a lot from this lecture to use in my own design processes. There was a lot to take on board but this is something I have a keen interest in. I would like to be an excellent designer whilst keeping my emissions down.
I found the next part of the seminar the most interesting. We are often told, in society, that certain things are "evil" or "bad". We are made to feel responsible for the bad things happening to the planet. those who are not in the know believe this and can feel guilty about it. Take flying, for instance. We are told that air travel creates 2-4% of the worlds carbon emissions. However, the cement industry alone creates more than 5% of global emissions. The reason flying is targeted more than cement is that it is more 'glamorous' as a campaign. It looks aesthetically better to show, say a TV commercial, with a jet flying across the screen than to show a pile of cement. Also, the figure of how much carbon is emitted by air travel is distorted, depending on who is publicising the figures. The travel company themselves would go for the lower figure of 2%, were as an opposing force would go for the higher number of 4%. Cement companies are happy about this as they are not getting any unwanted attention. However, it has been estimated that 20 cement plants will project 2.5 billion tonnes of carbon emission annually by 2050. This works out at 20 times more than the UK government has promised will be created by this time. Personally, I think that it is shocking that all of this goes on, covered from the knowledge of the main population. I believe we should be entitled to all of the facts before making up our own minds.
We are so comfortable with our lifestyles in westernised Britain that we are reluctant to change. I think we all play a part in carbon emissions and we know that we do. A laptop generates 4000 times its own weight in waste carbon in it's lifetime. Yet the majority of households have at least one laptop, some even more. In my house alone there are four. Ceramic mugs need to be used 1,006 times just to be worth the energy spent making them. Then there is the war against carrier bags. We are told we should use paper bags or reusable fabric bags ans they are greener than polythene (plastic) bags. However, studies have shown that it takes 4 times as much energy to manufacture a paper bag than a plastic bag. it also uses 20 times more water to be recycled than plastic does. So it looks like Fabric bags would be best. This could be the case, but the EnviroAgency found that a Fabric bag would have to be used 131 times to make it worthwhile. Only this amount of use would make it better than using plastic. The biggest amount of carbon emissions in the UK is caused by ExxonMobil. BP is twice as efficient.
We, as designers, are in a position to make a difference. We can influence our consumers with which materials we us, how we source them, how they are constructed and how efficient they are. Basically put, the seminar concluded by telling us that green ethics is complex. I agree fully with this statement and believe that I have learnt a lot from this lecture to use in my own design processes. There was a lot to take on board but this is something I have a keen interest in. I would like to be an excellent designer whilst keeping my emissions down.
Sunday 6 January 2013
Innovation - 18th October 2012 - Dan Berry
"There are useful starting points and landmarks, but the road to innovation consists of overlapping
spaces or paths, rather than a sequence of steps in one direction" - Tim Brown
The lecture started with the above quote. We then went on to discuss the starting points and landmarks of design. The questions we were faced with were what is it, how does it apply to me and why is it important. Some definitions are; blue sky thinking, thinking outside the box, lateral thinking, imaganeering, leveraging the USP and Best Foot Forwardability (BFFAbility). These terms are very vague and at first I did not understand until Dan went into more detail about these definitions. Repeatability was discussed. This is how we, as designers, need to repeat the successes we have had. We need to gain strength and iron out weaknesses to become repeatable.
Innovation has a variety of meanings on the web. Wikipedia says that innovation is "the development of new customer value through solutions that meet new needs". However, Wikipedia is not a reliable source to get any information from. Anybody can add or remove information from Wikipedia. Dan says that he does not think this quote is applicable to his own work, thus making Wikipedia look less reliable. Also, according to the same source, innovation is numbers and rankings. After a discussion in the lecture, we concluded that this would be very difficult to apply to the innovation of our own creative practice.
Gabriel Tarde made another attempt at approaching a definition of innovation in 1903.This consists of first knowledge. This is when the idea for a new product or design first comes to light, in the form of maybe a brief or job for a client. This is followed by forming an attitude. This is looking at the proposed plan for the product and forming ones own ideas and opinion on the matter. Next comes a decision to adopt or reject the idea. Simply put, this is the stage at which the designer decides whether or not to keep on going with the idea. If they do, the next stage would be implementation and use. This is where the manufacturing would begin. The process of innovation, according to Tarde, then ends with confirmation of the decision, the final product. This description goes some way to describing the innovation process but does not completely satisfy us as a description for innovative behaviours we see in contemporary and modern design. The truth is, there is no single definition that wholly describes innovation. It is to broad a subject matter. The facts we do know is that innovation comes from the Latin - innovares, which means to renew or change. This is innovation in a nutshell. After all this discussion, we came up with a solution. It doesn't matter if we can not find a definition for innovation as a whole, as long as we can define our individual creative practices.
Next, we discussed theory and practise. I agree with Dan's views that it is silly to differentiate between the two. Like he said in the lecture, the two are mutually exclusive. Practise without any knowledge of the theory would not work and it would be pointless to do the theory without any real knowledge of how to put it into practise. One thing that I took from this lecture is that I should continue to practise alongside the theory to keep me at my best.
spaces or paths, rather than a sequence of steps in one direction" - Tim Brown
The lecture started with the above quote. We then went on to discuss the starting points and landmarks of design. The questions we were faced with were what is it, how does it apply to me and why is it important. Some definitions are; blue sky thinking, thinking outside the box, lateral thinking, imaganeering, leveraging the USP and Best Foot Forwardability (BFFAbility). These terms are very vague and at first I did not understand until Dan went into more detail about these definitions. Repeatability was discussed. This is how we, as designers, need to repeat the successes we have had. We need to gain strength and iron out weaknesses to become repeatable.
Innovation has a variety of meanings on the web. Wikipedia says that innovation is "the development of new customer value through solutions that meet new needs". However, Wikipedia is not a reliable source to get any information from. Anybody can add or remove information from Wikipedia. Dan says that he does not think this quote is applicable to his own work, thus making Wikipedia look less reliable. Also, according to the same source, innovation is numbers and rankings. After a discussion in the lecture, we concluded that this would be very difficult to apply to the innovation of our own creative practice.
Gabriel Tarde made another attempt at approaching a definition of innovation in 1903.This consists of first knowledge. This is when the idea for a new product or design first comes to light, in the form of maybe a brief or job for a client. This is followed by forming an attitude. This is looking at the proposed plan for the product and forming ones own ideas and opinion on the matter. Next comes a decision to adopt or reject the idea. Simply put, this is the stage at which the designer decides whether or not to keep on going with the idea. If they do, the next stage would be implementation and use. This is where the manufacturing would begin. The process of innovation, according to Tarde, then ends with confirmation of the decision, the final product. This description goes some way to describing the innovation process but does not completely satisfy us as a description for innovative behaviours we see in contemporary and modern design. The truth is, there is no single definition that wholly describes innovation. It is to broad a subject matter. The facts we do know is that innovation comes from the Latin - innovares, which means to renew or change. This is innovation in a nutshell. After all this discussion, we came up with a solution. It doesn't matter if we can not find a definition for innovation as a whole, as long as we can define our individual creative practices.
Next, we discussed theory and practise. I agree with Dan's views that it is silly to differentiate between the two. Like he said in the lecture, the two are mutually exclusive. Practise without any knowledge of the theory would not work and it would be pointless to do the theory without any real knowledge of how to put it into practise. One thing that I took from this lecture is that I should continue to practise alongside the theory to keep me at my best.
What is Design? - Marrise Mari
This lecture was fairly interesting because it taught me what it means to be a designer. The first thing I took from this lecture is that the key to design is how it relates to the people, my audience and the public."Design is the concious effort to impose meaningful order", this is a quote by Victor Papanek, author of Design for the Real World. Papanek was referenced heavily throughout this lecture. I will speak about his ideals in more detail further in this report. What this quote means is that no product stands alone. There is a process which results in the product, whatever it may be, becoming the solution to a problem.Designers have to determine creative outcomes in order to answer the problem at hand. Planning and research are essential to any design outcome, this is why I always make sure to research thoroughly and plan as carefully as i can before answering any brief I am given.
Papanek introduced The Function Complex. This complex was published in Design for the Real World, a book which I own. The first point on the Function Complex is method. This is the choice of tools, materials and processes and the interaction between them.Secondly comes association.This is the differences of values between audiences, be it cultural, age or education. A persons background can affect how they recieve the product and whether or not it caters to their needs. This brings us to another point of the Function Complex - need. All of the needs of the consumer must be satisfied. Most design fulfils evanescent desires but does not satisfy the genuine needs of man. These are the psychological, economical, social, spiritual intellectual and technological needs of man. These are not entirely easy to satisfy, but as designer, it is our duty to try to satisfy as many of these needs as possible with our product. Before this lecture and the research that followed it, I never really thought of these genuine needs as something I needed to satisfy. We, as designers, tend to fulfil wants instead of needs. After looking at this, I have realised that I need to think more about genuine needs of the consumer. How will this affect them psychologically, socially or intellectually? There is more to design than meets the eye. The next point on the Function Complex is use. This is possibly the most simple point - How will it be used? As a tool? For communication? As a symbol? For information? A designer must plan this out before beginning work on a product. We also must take into consideration the penultimate point - aesthetics. What will the product look like? Will it be ergonomic? The dictionary defines aesthetics as "a theory of the beautiful, in tastes and art" when in actual fact, whether or not the product is aesthetically pleasing, in my opinion, is not the most important point. Many designers get caught up in aesthetics and put all their efforts into making their products look good while compromising on quality elsewhere. I agree that designers should use the aesthetics as an expression of themselves. I tend to look at the aesthetics at the end of my design process, after deciding on how best to satisfy and answer the brief. The last point of the Function Complex was the hardest for me to understand and something completely new to me. This is telesis - the deliberate utilisation of nature and society to fulfil a design goal. Papanek says that "The telesic content of a design must reflect the times and conditions that have given rise to it and must fit in with the general human socioeconomic order in which it is to operate". This means that the product must be current and relevant in order to succeed in the society it is to be integrated into. I still do not fully understand the telesis of a product and make it my aim to do more research by reading more of Design for the Real World.
Design will always cause pollution. There are 6 key phases that will result in a production of pollution. The first is material choice. As designers, we should make and informed and concious decision when choosing a material. We should choose something sustainable, something that does not cost the planet a lot during manufacture or recycling. We should also make sure we cause as little pollution as we can when manufacturing the product we design. During this manufacturing, the amount of packaging should be kept to a minimum. This will significantly reduce the amount of pollution created by designers. Also, less packaging will cause less waste, another big factor in pollution caused by design. One of the very biggest pollution-causing problems is the matter of transport.Regardless of what form of transport, aside from walking or cycling, pollution will always be created. It is our job to get our product to the client as efficiently as possible.
To sum up this part of the lecture, we were told the "10 Commandments of Art and Design". This basically recapped everything we had previously learnt and I felt that I was being patronised in the way this was delivered. I do want to be a better designer and do good for the planet and the people on it but i did not like the way this subject was concluded.
The next part of this lecture outlined the constructs of design. Sir George Cox, a UK business man, says "Design is what links creativity and innovation.It shapes ideas to become practical and attractive propositions for users or customers.Design may be described as creativity deployed to a specific end.". I have no ideas as to what this could mean, as it was not described to me in the lecture. I am struggling to understand this concept and may, again need to apply more time to researching constructs of design.
After a brief overview of some books that may be helpful, it was on to the next topic, design entity and the three constructs of design. this approach splits design into doing, living or interpreting I believe that my design philosophy lies with the latter. I like to interpret briefs and put my own spin on them. I like to use my work to communicate my ideas with the client, whoever it may be. I also believe that I am starting to develop the design thinking mindset. I am aware that design is centred around the human race. Everything is designed and everything has an impact on how humans live their life. I am also starting to develop a care for who i am working for, my clients. I want to do a good job to please them, not only so that they use my services again but also that I can rest safe in the knowledge that they are happy with the product I have given them. I have also began to do some collaboration work but I could work on this. I did not realise the importance of collaboration until having a discussion in this lecture. I should make myself more flexible within my field of work in order to make myself capable to cross platforms. This is known as a T shaped designer. It's the difference between being a designer and just thinking like one. It broadens our approach to design as a whole.
I thought this essay was very informative and I learnt a lot after doing a bit more research and having time to go over my notes and the presentation. I had to do this because I felt that the lecture was presented in a way that was above my knowledge and capability. I could not keep up with the speed at which the content was delivered and there wasn't time for any discussions. I feel I could have learnt more if it was little more informal.
 |
| Papaneks Function Complex. |
Design will always cause pollution. There are 6 key phases that will result in a production of pollution. The first is material choice. As designers, we should make and informed and concious decision when choosing a material. We should choose something sustainable, something that does not cost the planet a lot during manufacture or recycling. We should also make sure we cause as little pollution as we can when manufacturing the product we design. During this manufacturing, the amount of packaging should be kept to a minimum. This will significantly reduce the amount of pollution created by designers. Also, less packaging will cause less waste, another big factor in pollution caused by design. One of the very biggest pollution-causing problems is the matter of transport.Regardless of what form of transport, aside from walking or cycling, pollution will always be created. It is our job to get our product to the client as efficiently as possible.
To sum up this part of the lecture, we were told the "10 Commandments of Art and Design". This basically recapped everything we had previously learnt and I felt that I was being patronised in the way this was delivered. I do want to be a better designer and do good for the planet and the people on it but i did not like the way this subject was concluded.
The next part of this lecture outlined the constructs of design. Sir George Cox, a UK business man, says "Design is what links creativity and innovation.It shapes ideas to become practical and attractive propositions for users or customers.Design may be described as creativity deployed to a specific end.". I have no ideas as to what this could mean, as it was not described to me in the lecture. I am struggling to understand this concept and may, again need to apply more time to researching constructs of design.
After a brief overview of some books that may be helpful, it was on to the next topic, design entity and the three constructs of design. this approach splits design into doing, living or interpreting I believe that my design philosophy lies with the latter. I like to interpret briefs and put my own spin on them. I like to use my work to communicate my ideas with the client, whoever it may be. I also believe that I am starting to develop the design thinking mindset. I am aware that design is centred around the human race. Everything is designed and everything has an impact on how humans live their life. I am also starting to develop a care for who i am working for, my clients. I want to do a good job to please them, not only so that they use my services again but also that I can rest safe in the knowledge that they are happy with the product I have given them. I have also began to do some collaboration work but I could work on this. I did not realise the importance of collaboration until having a discussion in this lecture. I should make myself more flexible within my field of work in order to make myself capable to cross platforms. This is known as a T shaped designer. It's the difference between being a designer and just thinking like one. It broadens our approach to design as a whole.
I thought this essay was very informative and I learnt a lot after doing a bit more research and having time to go over my notes and the presentation. I had to do this because I felt that the lecture was presented in a way that was above my knowledge and capability. I could not keep up with the speed at which the content was delivered and there wasn't time for any discussions. I feel I could have learnt more if it was little more informal.
Tuesday 9 October 2012
Session One - Manifestos - 4th October
Description: A public declaration making announcement, explanation or defence of intentions or motives.
Basically, a manifesto, in reference to design, is the policy or agenda laid out by the designer or artist on the grounds of their design. Manifestos are linked mainly to the Avant Garde Movement.
In this lecture, I learnt more about manifesto in design. I loosely knew what a manifesto was, due to being involved with businesses which had them in place, such as my old sixth form. As a whole, I feel that the lecture was very relevant and I know that I can apply it to myself as a designer whilst I progress.
I learnt about the manifestos of some designers, some of which I agree with, others I don't. One that particularly struck me was the manifesto of the ADF (Anti Design Festival). The ADF are an organisation that are against generic society. They want anarchy to crash and burn. Their manifesto begins with the statement "We are living in an age where millions of colours have become 256". This made me captivated straight away. In a nutshell, the manifesto is basically having a go at the new generation and how everyone is hypnotised by generic design.
I enjoyed this lecture and found it very useful. However, I feel that it did not flow properly and Adam was easily distracted by Ikea. I found it hard to keep up as it jumped from one subject to another. Other than this, the information and knowledge i gained has inspired me to do further research into the Futurists, Designers Against Monoculture, Ken Garland and the ADF.
I enjoyed this lecture and found it very useful. However, I feel that it did not flow properly and Adam was easily distracted by Ikea. I found it hard to keep up as it jumped from one subject to another. Other than this, the information and knowledge i gained has inspired me to do further research into the Futurists, Designers Against Monoculture, Ken Garland and the ADF.
Sources : http://www.antidesignfestival.com/disinformation/?page_id=4
http://www.english-test.net/sat/vocabulary/words/313/sat-descriptions.php#manifesto
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)