[Waste=Food]

I have a tendency to tear apart the documentaries in this class. This one is no exception on the aesthetic end. Poor camera work, poor choice of music, poor editing, etc.

However, the topic was far more fascinating, and much better presented than the past documentaries. Part of this was because of the poor aesthetics: they could not get in the way to make up for lacking content. And there was no need to make up for poor content choices: it was simply full.

At the heart of the documentary is the Cradle to Cradle movement and the two very awkward nerd-partners who envisioned it: William McDonough, an award-winning American architect, and Michael Braungart, a German physicist, Greenpeace advocate, and winner of the Strangest Analogy Award. It was on a New York rooftop that their vision of a better world (along with a delightful bromance) started. Their basis for a better world was a simple yet powerful statement: "Everything that is made from Biology [which is pretty much everything] should be able to safely return to the soil."

This sounds like a hopeless romantic ecologist's daydream, doesn't it? The thing is, it's not. Working with a German cloth manufacturer, Braungart was able to design both fabrics, cloths and dyes that were safe to produce and had no toxic materials in them. Most importantly though, it was just as financially feasible.

The two's work, which now is under the institution of MBDC, includes redesigning factories for Ford, working with Nike to manufacture completely Cradle to Cradle shoes, and even being apart of China's five-year sustainability plan. And while initial costs are great, the innovations often end up saving the company money while also improving work flow and moral.

Take, for instance, the Green Roof at the Ford Motor Plant in Detroit. The Bromancers (as I will lovingly refer to McDonough and Braungart from now on) designed a roof that was made up of grass and plants: a hefty investment that to many business men might seem like a whimsical fantasy expense. However, the roof, because it is growing, will not need to be replaced-only maintained with minimal repair. Re-roofing an entire car plant is a multi-million dollar job that would have to happen every ten-to-twenty years. Along with that, the Green Roof filters and purifies rainwater that would otherwise have to be shipped and chemically processed, saving the company even more money. And then, as icing on the cake, it uses materials that are natural and good for the earth, and even is home to many other creatures.

The power of of The Bromancers is that they take the grand utopian ideas and put them to work in a business-minded way. This is the basis behind Cradle-to-Cradle: putting our stuff to work. Waste becomes food for the earth. Food for innovation. Food for an industry. Or just food in general. Our dreams are put to work making industries not just more green, but more profitable.

"A building should be like a tree," Braungart tells us. It should grow, purify the air, produce fruit, be a home for creatures and produce things. It should respect it's inhabitants as individuals. A building should not just be sustainable; it should be beneficial.  "If someone asked 'how is your relationship with your girlfriend,' and you replied, 'sustainable,' that's not a good answer." In the same way, we don't want a sustainable relationship with the earth, we want a good one. Sustainable is less bad. Less bad is still bad. What we want is good.

So must everything break down into organic waste? Not necessarily right away. In The Bromancer's world, there are two places waste can go: the ecosphere, or biology, or the technoshpere, back to production. Modern recycling takes a stab at this by the re-use of waste, but it fails in one area: recycled products are downcycled until they become waste again. In order for them to benefit the world better, they must be upcycled, or be refined into a better product. This means things should be easily disassembled, and made of plastics that can be refined or chemically altered to a better state. And of course, the end goal being that the plastic can bio-degrade to benefit the earth, and is not toxic to produce.

What The Bromancers are asking of all industries is far more than just sustainability; rather, it is a world where consuming things is beneficial, not harmful, to the world.

It is easy to be swept away by the utopian vision of a completely green world. I believe it is important: I do not believe it is the most important. We are still dealing with extreme poverty, drought, genocide, war, and not to mention the various emotional and physical disabilities we suffer from. A greener society will not fix all our problems. It may in fact, fix fewer than we feel, and will cause more than we think. This is the case with any changes made on this earth. However, I believe it is something important to be pursued on both the corporate level, and the smaller, household level as well.

And good Lord, that bow-tie. Damn classy.

[Design & thinking documentary]

As stated before, I have an issue with documentaries, due to their inability to examine situations with objectivity. This exploitation often takes two forms: the first is that the filmmaker seeks to exploit all of the dramatic moments in order to turn a rather boring situation into a dramatic, two-hour thriller. The second kind of exploitation is the opposite; taking all the good of a situation and never showing the bad, in order to excite or inspire or whatever other bullshit catch-words you might use at a convention.

Design & Thinking, a film by Mui-Ming Tsai, is guilty of the second exploitative technique. The light, bouncy music, shallow depth of field shooting in all, hi-key light filming pretty, happy people. It dances around from scene to scene (each scene presented with a Wes-Anderson-esque futura title card), showing how happy people are at their job, and how much they love design, and God-forbid we ever see these designers try to curse out that piece of plastic that just wont fit.

But this isn't a film review blog, it's a design blog. So now I'll talk about design.

The problem with these sorts of documentaries (besides the fact that they are poor pieces of cinema) is that they rarely show you much about the process itself. All monotony is stripped away, leaving us with just the exciting results. Now you may look at me like I'm stupid, and say "of course you cut out the boring parts-It's a movie." Then I would say you are apparently watching bad movies ('Breathless', 'There Will Be Blood', and 'Hunger' are all excellent films that use the boring parts to their advantage). However, this is simply not fair. To show the exciting parts of design, stripped of blood, sweat and tears is an insult to design and designers themselves.

Some might argue that the purpose of the film is to inspire us to look at design differently. Well, they've failed in that too: it seems they are echoes the same "Design is everywhere!" chant that every other design-based film is echoing as well. As for inspiration, it fails in that area too. Sure, I might get excited the the happy people, and the fun shapes and all the money, but when I actually set down to the nitty gritty, my inspiration high will quickly wear off, leaving me more sad than before.

Not to say that the movie was a complete bore. Talking with the guy who ran the cooking classes was very intriguing.

My biggest problem with the film was the tone. The tone that is so well summed up by a passing quote on a door of one of the design institute: "Every problem has a material solution." The whole tone of the film was that this was true, that design of material things could fix every problem. There is no idea that is more dangerous than this, and this is where I really show my cards as a Christian Mystic. This assumes that every problem is rooted in the material world. That we are no more than a collection of molecules interacting and processing via matter and energy. It assumes that our problems are not based in something far deeper that matter.

This is my problem with design today; we really believe we can fix everything, while we ignore the blatant issue that maybe, just maybe we are the problem.

A Zahner

My friend, the comedic genius that he is, does an excellent YouTube show called the Oreo Reviewer. A riveting, edge of your seat experience. You should check out the latest episode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SvXxbeC2rs

Also, if you notice the genius channel art, that's all me.

Anyways, A Zahner! A family-owned company that started over 115 years ago that has blossomed into one of the leading metal fabricators. Their main clients are architects and artists looking to fabricate complex metal facades. Their job is to help take the ideas and make them a reality. Ideas are discussed with engineers and designers, and tests are made before final pieces are made and shipped. Often, tests can be quite large, built on mockup towers for the architects to see.

The main tools used in fabrication are the Chimbo Punch, Waterjet, and Mill. The punch is used to perforate or dent the metal in particular ways. It's ability to program it to make complex perforation makes it unique. The waterjet is used for cutting metal using water at high speeds, and can get very exact and detailed cuts. The mills is used for thicker steel or more simple cuts. It is quicker and more cost efficient.

The different metals are also treated with different chemicals processes in order to get unique finishes. One in particular, called Interference Colored Stainless Steel is treated so that the light reflects off the metal at a different angle, allowing our eyes to perceive it as darker.

They work in strictly metals. Steel, copper, ect. Some aluminum, but rarely composites, because of their difficulty to work with.

They like to innovate. Currently, they are renovating their old building to become another section of the shop.

And that's A-Zahner!

Frank Gehry

Here's an interesting fact about coffee: there is no such thing as a 'coffee flavor.' I mean, there is for ice cream or other crap like that, but real coffee is just a combination of multiple flavors. There are six parts to a cup of coffee where flavors can reside: the aroma, the body, the flavor, the sweetness, the aftertaste, and the acidity. Each can be ranked on a scale of 1-10, and is also assigned a different flavor profile. My favorite roast is an Ethiopian SOE called Deri Kocha, which originates from the area Ethiopia of the same name. Roasted at only a 2, it's incredibly light and full of floral flavors. As a pour over, it's similar to a raspberry tea, and as espresso, it has a similar taste to Blood Orange. Unfortunately, it's out of season at the moment, so I need to wait a year to get some more. 

And now, onto the homework. 

I don't love documentaries. As one who has studied film, I understand that the purpose of film is not to portray reality, but rather to give the viewer the illusion of reality, which is excellent in fiction and disastrous when applied to actual events (and we wonder why the news tells us nothing). Thus, even after watching a documentary about Frank Gehry, I feel I know very little about him. Was he a genius? Was he crazy with enough smart engineers behind him? I was bothered by how he had people building the models for him. I liked his bluntness. I disliked how he left his wife to become a better architect. 

I shall therefore comment upon what I know to be true (and even that tainted by music and camera angles): the process and the architecture itself. 

Of what I saw of Frank's process was this: making lots of loose handed sketches, free handed and wild, and then building model after model, very quickly, then scanning the models into a computer to get all the technical measurements. Initial models were quick, made from whatever elements were lying around. As they became more technical, craftsmen would make more technical ones out of wood and plexi. Models can then be made in the computer using a 3D scanning tool. 

The architecture itself is wild, unlike anything I've ever seen. It's full of compound curves and movement, weird angles. When looking at it in the midst of a city, it's like seeing an aborigine in the midst of a business meeting.  My initial feeling is one of wonder and awe, which is rare. Buildings bore me unless they're old. 

However, there seems to be something missing in his work. The structure is a sprawling jazz piece, an epic cacophony of structure, shape, and material, but still a cacophony, never the less. Parts awkwardly jut out here, curve there. It's all very free, individual, but not cohesive. It does not point to something greater than itself. This of course, is fine. I just feel without it, it feels lacking. 

In the video, his Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, was called to a cathedral. I cannot agree. Cathedrals point upward, spiritually. The purpose of a Cathedral is to remind humanity that it is small, that us as artists do not create, but rather tap the great beauty. 

However, Frank's work does have an aspect I love: whimsical fun. Every piece I look at of his feels like it was fun to make, as if he were playfully putting his middle finger up to stodgy architects whenever their backs were turned. And I like that a lot. He seems to tap a simple, childlike joy in his work that makes the impossible possible, and trades practicality and utility for laughter and beauty, a feast for the human soul. 

[Matthias Pliessnig]

Did you know that the famous YouTube video Heyyeyaaeyaaaeyaeyaa was actually a morph off of another video? Funny world isn't it. If you haven't seen the video, here's a link.

Anyway, back to that design stuff.

Matthias Pliessnig is an artist and furniture designer who's work is made out of bent wood. Using a machine called a steam bender, he heats the glue-like fibers in the wood, allowing it to bend with considerable ease for about thirty seconds before hardening again. The wood he uses is mostly white oak, all air dried (as opposed to the process of placing the wood in a kiln to bake). Forms are wrapped around plywood struts that act like a cast for the wood to be bend around, and the pieces are glued or riveted together.

Usually, when people talk at Hallmark, I am looking at my watch, quite ready to leave. For this one, I was still looking at my watch, because I had a date I didn't want to be late to, but I sincerely hoped that these two events would not end up conflicting because I was thoroughly enjoying his speaking. I even asked a question, which is about as rare as a baboon giving birth to an elephant.

The organic shapes captivated my imagination. That would could bend in such unique ways was truly amazing to me, how it could resemble such a living, breathing mass while still being incredibly light and functional. What struck me most, however, was his process. Matthias talked about how often he would experiment with shapes. His early works of simply free-bending the wood were inspirational, how he would ignore the computer in order to get in touch with the wood itself. I dislike doing creative work on a computer (except when I'm writing, because I can write faster. Even then I print off to re-read,) and to see a designer who, while used the computer, was not reliant upon it was incredibly encouraging. Rhino was used as a tool to give a visual idea to clients, not as the creative process itself.

Also, I like boats. Perhaps I'll build one soon.

*Sigh* Up

Well, let's start this blog with something fun. I watched two great films over last weekend. One was a French New Wave film by Jean-Luc Goddard called Vivre sa Vie, and the other was a Japanese film by Akura Kurosawa called Rashomon. Both are excellent, and I highly recommend them highly. My girlfriend and I also went on a date to the new Lawrence Library (what horrid Lawrencians we are-we hadn't even been there yet!) and I picked up a few comic books by an author known as Jason. Check him out.

Alright, now on to the homework stuff: Sign Up!

Sign Up is a local company that manufactures (say it with me, kids) signs, from small wayfinding signs to large aluminum facades. Their main clients are colleges, along with businesses. While Sign Up does some design, their job is most often to take their customers ideas and make them into reality, which may mean altering some parts of their dream sign so it can actually exist.

Sign Up's shop is an industrial building on the east side of Lawrence, large enough to deal with the larger signs (often up to 20 feet). Most signs are made out of aluminum, being a lighter metal. Cutting is done on a CNC router, along with jump shears. Welding and riveting are common methods of attatchment. For more precise cutting, or the need to cut thicker aluminum (below 6 gauge), they ship out of house.

Paint is mixed in house and sprayed on in their super badass spray booth, and then can be moved into a super badass huge oven to heat dry.

Digital decals can be printed in house in various manners.

And yeah, that's what they do. They were kinda cool, I guess

Pics from Reuter

[organ trippers (wat?)]

This is a new year for this blog I am forced to write at the expense of my teachers beating me within an inch of my life (or something like that, I don't really listen) So lets welcome in the new year with pazazz.

great, now that we have all that excitement out of the way, we can get down to the boring-err, very important and informative... stuff? that we are supposed to be writing about.

Also, a technical note: due to technical problems, involving my lack of internet, my roomate's not lack of internet and a flying space-monkey (don't ask, the whole situation is rather confusing), I am unable to post my photo's with my text. Therefore, I will post two separate articles, one on my thoughts, other with photos.

And now if you will raise your seatbacks to the upright position, and raise your tray tables up, we will begin making our descent from the air of my brain to actually talking about important things like....

THE REUTER ORGAN COMPANY

I have very little interest in mass production. It is great for toothbrushes and staplers. I don't want to build those. And so, to visit a company that creates these massive structures unique to each location in house from start to finish was an inspiration. How unique each of their pieces fit each client's needs declares their excellence of craft. And what the heck-I love classical music! 

Within the first few minutes of our tour, we learned that very little has changed since the invention of the modern pipe organ (Organs have apparently been around since the Greeks, but the organ we know today was pioneered in the 1700's). Main changes include the use of electricity to power the system, an idea which the Reuter company pioneered in 1917. The client base has remained static as well, as the main consumers of organs are firstly Churches, and then concert halls, universities, and occasionally very rich private owners. 

Organs are highly complex systems. The Keys that are played are simply a tiny fraction of all the movements happening behind the shutters. Those keys are housed in the console, the cockpit of the organ. The modern organ uses electrical signals sent down fiberoptic wire to trigger sound. The signals travel to the wind chest and reservoir. The signal triggers a specific flap to release air into a single pipe, which then produces a tone. 

For every specific sound an organ makes, 60 separate pipes must be manufactured. Larger organs can house up to 50 sets of pipes, making for thousands of pipes in each organ. 

The housing, cockpit, resivoir, etc. are all made of wood. For the wind chest, Poplar wood is used because of it's lack of knots, better for holding in air. Outsides and finishing woods vary upon color and taste.

All the wood is stored in house, where it is milled per project. It is then taken to the shop to be finished. More complicated work, such as the holes cut for the wind-chest and the ornamental work are cut with a CNC router, which apparently sounds like a jet taking off, so you know the thing is damn cool. 

Reuter Organ company is the only company to still produce their own organ keys. All are a base layer of wood, and are then overlayed in plastic, bone or finished as plain wood. 

Pipes that are over four feet long are rolled sheets of either copper or zinc, and finished with either automotive paint, varnish, or specifically for copper, flamed (a technique which includes exposing the copper to flame) smaller pipes are fashioned from a smelting of lead and tin, done in shop using a floating method. Pipes are all fashioned by hand, due to the difference in size of each pipe.

The final variant is valves, which are fashioned from sheep leather. These valves attach the pipe to the reservoir The reservoir is also lined with kangaroo leather, which stretches in two directions.  

In the final stages, the whole organ is constructed in house for a trial run, and then deconstructed and shipped to its new home.

Aren't organs cool? I'm done.

[Rips of Reality]

When we view photographs, we tend to think of them always telling the whole picture (no pun intended). We pull them out of context, using them to give us the complete spectrum of a situation. If a photograph is altered, or the situation posed for the photo, we tend to think of the picture as being false. Errol Morris, in his interview with The Guardian, brings up a good point: all photographs are posed. "There is always an elephant outside the frame." Errol says. In other words, the photographer decides for us what is important to see, and what is not. He decides at what point his subjects are ready to be viewed. 

This is important an important counter to the idea that photographs tell the truth, especially in todays society, where photographs can be so easily altered. Photographs, while helpful tools, leave out the most important part of understanding a situation; the context. On a basic level, we leave out the surroundings. Even if a whole room is photographed, we leave out the hallway, the outside, the neighborhood it's in. Secondly, we leave out every other sensation we have; we cannot visit the room because we cannot smell the air, touch the furniture, perhaps taste the food. Finally, we cannot understand the social aspects, the context of experience. When one visits a place, he or she has an interaction that they experience. In some sense they connect themselves through a mental record to that room. When we view a picture as the whole picture, we are missing out on those little details we might notice if we were in the room, those things only we would care about. 

[Spencer Art Museum Visit]

If I am being perfectly honest, I was exausted when I went to the Spencer. I spent the morning pumping myself with caffein and blasting Kanye West to stay awake. However, three objects stuck out to me during my visit.

The first was the Chinese sculpture of all the broken pots glued together. This technically wasn't apart of the official tour, but this piece made me rethink the definition of collage, expanding it beyond just the basics perhaps.

The second was the image of all the movie screens. The amount of emotion displayed through the repetition of blank space shocked me. I was filled by the overwhelming sense of the passing of time, and that while things are growing, we are leaving behind so much beauty.

The third photo that stuck out to me was of the man in the museum, standing in the crosshairs of cupid's arrow (or rather a statue of cupid). This to me was first of all funny, but secondly showed me about implied line, a theme I would like to apply to my artwork, seeing as my current piece is based on relationship and division.

Also, the fact that the guy in the arctic picture wasn't actually wearing any pants was really funny.

[PHOTOGRAPHY IS EVERYWHERE. HIDE YOUR CHILDREN & FAMILIES.]

Photography, as I said in my past essay, is everywhere. What we need to realize is that it does not just exist, but rather is active. Photography shapes your interest in the world around you. For instance, advertisements are meant to make you want something by showing you why you should want it. Photographs are constantly changing our perception of the world.

There are three main ways in which we interact with photos: we take them, we view them, and we use them. In taking them, we are deeming a moment to be memorable. This changes our understanding of a moment in  time. Whether the moments before were leading up to the taking of the picture (like in food advertising or a family picture), or the photographer simply snapped a picture of an event, the moment was deemed necessary to be remembered.

That moment then is defined by the photo. The reality of that moment is the photograph, captured forever. We view photo's as reality, which is not always the case. Family photos come under my particular scrutiny, showing the "happy family". Are those memories actually happy? There are times we view an image and are not fooled by this perceived reality. For instance, a McDonalds ad of a big, juicy hamburger on the side of a truck. Firstly, we know burgers are never as big as the side of the truck. Secondly, we know a McDonalds burger won't ever look that good. However, we still get hungry sometimes.

The third way we interact with a photo is for use. Whether an advertiser uses the picture of the hamburger to make us hungry, or an old woman uses a picture of her younger self to relive her old days, we use photos to draw up the past or the present and rearrange it to suit us better. We rely on photos to reafirm the truth, remind us of a loved one, restore our faith in humanity, and so on.

[Vivian Maire]

[Sontag's World of Photography]

Photography has been encroaching on our world for the past 200 years, finding it's way into the pockets of American all over, slowly at first, and now at a dizzying rate. It's hard to imagine that when I was first born, cameras took pictures on film, and no one had even imagined putting a camera in a cell phone. By the time I had my first phone, however, it already had a camera put in it, which I pretty much used to try and get selfies with girls I had crushes on. Now, at the age of twenty, I'm using a professional-grade digital DSLR, with more RAM than an 80's computer to take photo's like this:

(Completely shameless plug for the summer project I'm working on)

Photography has taken over. It has saturated every area of our modern world: art, music, surveillance, teaching, training, etc. 

When one steps back and looks at this from a sort of "cosmic view", it becomes rather disturbing. The idea that we take snapshots of time, like this one:

(another shameless plug for my summer project)

and it becomes a sort of reality to us is strange. And when we look at the scope of what is photographed, which at this point (thanks to Google Earth) is everything, photography can suddenly seem like a rather scary subject. 

This seems to the Sontag's tone (besides her pretentious verbage); a wariness of the effect of photography on humanity. But I believe her scope is muddled; she is not clear on her intentions from the beginning, and thus her voice becomes lost in the mix. Is she against photography, like it seems at the beginning of her paragraph? ("Humankind lingers unregenerately in Plato’s cave, still reveling, its age-old habit, in mere images of the truth." -Sontag, 1). Or does she just wish photography would stay an art. Perhaps I'm just bad at reading (a probability), but it seems Sontag has mixed feelings about the use of photography. 

This is, of course, understandable. Because of the depths to which photography has permeated our world, it is hard to get a conclusive read on it's effects. Photography is used in every field; there are no control groups available. So photography becomes muddled and confusing.

Ultimately, this makes me feel uneasy. What is photography doing to us, as a society, as individuals, as people in relationship, etc. It's difficult to see the effects, because we swim in the water. 

So, in conclusion to this rambling, I guess I'll just quote Phillip Greenspun; "Anyway, People take Pictures."

[A Viewer's Guide to Photography]

I would be a liar if I told you that at the beginning of reading this essay, I felt like Robin Williams from Dead Poets Society, urging the students to rip from their textbooks the analysis section of poetry. But then again that's just me.

The difficulty of art, whether it be photography or painting or sculpture or performance, is that there really is no way to put a worthy number on it. Or perhaps, there are too many ways of seeing it to put a value on it. There are rules in art; guidelines of aesthetics to help us know what is most pleasing to the eye, what draws us most inward. Sometimes, the artist wants to do the opposite of that, their intention to show repugnance and hatred. This is where art becomes difficult to give worth to: in that it has both objective and subjective elements.

Objectively, it is made up of forms. We can objectively describe the medium, shape, color, line, render quality, etc. We can also objectively show objects (or at least their representation). Subjectively, however, art is made up of ideas, feelings, intentions, the artist's perspective, etc.

Things get more difficult when the benefits of art are subjective. Some look at a Mark Rothko painting and can walk away unfazed, even bored. Others are moved to tears, and are filled with great emotion.

This is where learning to analyze art is important. Learning to approach it in such a manner that you reserve all judgement till after you complete the process of examination. Then, and only then can you examine a picture for what it is.

[Masters of Illusion]

One of the aspects of art is the attempt to mirror reality; to take a a flat surface and create the illusion of space. One way to create the illusion of space is through the use of perspective, a method pioneered during the Renaissance. The masters discovered through mathematical formulas and careful measurements, our views of reality could be mimicked and placed upon a three dimensional surface. This allowed the masters to literally paint doorways into another world, opening up a portal to lands of Biblical proportion through the use of simple line a spacing.

Today, however, Illusion is not so easily mastered. With the now everyday use of photography, a realistic snapshot on a two dimensional plane is common to man. And with special effects and digital paintings breaking past any sense of illusion (in animation's treacherous trek across the uncanny valley), perspective is no longer an illusion; it is expected.

Why is this change important? Because the purpose of illusion is to bring about wonder and amazement. Illusion, in the days before digital technology, was magic. It helped humans healthily interact with the mystery of the world around them. It allowed us to be reminded that there are things we cannot understand, and that this should bring us joy rather than despair.

In todays world, where illusion has lost it's mystic powers, we have almost lost our ability to be mystified. In the world where everything is calculated, quantified, and scrutinized, we so easily forget that there is so much we actually don't know. 

Art and design must continually attempt to mystify. We must move to places still a mystery to remind us that to be human means to be curious. We must understand that reality is not as simple as we sometimes thing (look at the internet-is it real?) Today there is more mystery than there ever has been in the world, with technology unlocking the depth of a cell, and the ability of the human to interact in worlds that exist outside of matter, and yet the awareness of mystery is beyond low. Art must continue to mystify, engaging the viewers to help people remember what it means to be a human. 

[Ways of Seeing]

Sight is our most dominant sense. Rather, sight has become, or perhaps been trained to be, the most dominant of our senses. Everything in our culture is based off of seeing unless it is being specifically designed for someone who cannot see. In our world seeing has literally become believing.

And yet sight might be one of the least objective of the senses, the sense that tricks us most. Perhaps this trickery comes about not by sight itself, but rather what we pull out of what was seen, the perception of the seen. What we see is a woman; what we perceive may be a variety of things, such as beauty, cruelty, confusion, or any other number of emotions that arise. With sight being the dominant sense, we attach far more of our own personalities to it than we might touch. (This of course, is generalizing; each sense does have a subjective bend in it due to our experiences, i.e. a lover's touch, the smell of a house, etc. However, these senses are far less likely to vary beyond the exact triggers than sight)

Sight is also easily manipulated by the other senses. Take the example from John Berger; if we view the same painting in two different ways with two different pieces of music in the background, we see that our perception is changed forever. The sound effects how we perceive what we are hearing. Take for instance, someone who once tasted or was sick on a certain food. The mere sight of that food could make them convulse. 

When we take all this into account, our view of design will change greatly. Aesthetics suddenly goes beyond our dominant sense, and must now cater to all five of them. We must consider the touch and sound of an object just as much as the sight, even considering how touch and sound might manipulate what we see. It also becomes clear that the setting that our object will be in will effect a persons understanding of it; taking this into consideration becomes important as well. 

[Collages]

Idea one: Places of Rest

My location for this piece is the inside of an old silo, a place I often go when I'm needing quiet. On the inside of the silo is a dead tree. With this piece I want to focus on a different ideas. One is the importance of closeness in saftey in how the walls of the silo almost wrap you up. However, I also want to show the silo as a symbol in itself for our state when we are in need of rest, often trapped within ourselves, unable to escape towards the sky.

Idea two: Places of worship

Places of worship have always interested me, in that they mean different things to different people. With this piece, I would like to show how perhaps our multiple perspectives on religion might just be what makes it beautiful... if we don't kill each other in the process.

Idea Three: Father/Son

Relationships between father's and son's are tricky at best. In this piece, I'd hope to show some points of connection and at the same time disconnect between my dad and I. How time has made us different, and how we have chosen to try and remain close. 

[The Process Book]

Wow! I haven't been uploading stuff recently. So, here's a post chronicling my past project!

Firstly, we have the three objects:

The bow tie

the pipe

and the pencil

I chose the pipe!

Here are my drawings of ideas

Here are some band-saw box experiments...

And Here's the final thing!

[The Worth of What is Worthless]

Design, in essence, is the act of relieving pain by the producing or modifying objects or systems. Doctors fix the human body. Designers are the doctors of the world around us, making where something is needed, modifying where a joint could move more smoothly. Why do we relieve pain? In the hopes that happiness can fill the void. 

This is where design begins to lose steam. We cannot fill the gap with objects of temporal value. We tried that in the fifties, at the height of consumerist culture. While happiness is a universal desire, it is far more complex than we would admit it to be. We think a certain action or objective will bring about happiness, but this is not always the case. Furthermore, happiness strikes us from the oddest places, from what we expect to produce pain. 

David Pye, in his essay The Nature of Aesthetics and Design says that it is only through the aesthetic nature of an object that we can fill this void in some way. I believe this to be true in some sense; beauty brings a certain wonder out of humans that allows us, in some sense, to transcend our day to day lives. However, there is one question I would like to pose: when we beautify an object for the purpose of bringing happiness, from where, according to the human mind, does the happiness come from? Do we look at the object and say, "This object is beautiful, and because it is beautiful, I will continue to search for the source of beauty and thus in hopes to find purpose for myself," or do we say "This object is beautiful, which makes me happy, and thus I will find more objects to make myself even more happy."? 

In one sense, a person could say that this distinction is inconsequential; in each case a person is made happy, so what does it matter where they see their happiness originating from? This would be true if happiness was static in nature; however, happiness is fleeting. It is not added, but disappears almost as soon as we have found it. Would it not then be better to send people searching for the source of happiness than to have them continually attempting to fill a metaphorical bottomless bucket, all the while consuming more objects?

Maybe this is just far too deep for design thinking, but it seems important to me. 

[Small/Big Design]

You know, it's gotta get hella boring reading all these essays from people. And let's be honest, occasionally I write like a pretentious bastard. So I think I'll write you a rap about this one

(and yes, I do sorta rap. I mean, I know I'm a white, middle class suburbian, but that makes me like twice as qualified to throw down a design rap).

Back in the day, we hella done well,
Lookin back at men like Izzy Brunell,
Building ships so big they made us shit bricks
The bigger the ideas the better the fix we get.
But since then, we've gotten kinda small,
Hipsters screenprinters hanging shit up on a wall.
And I think our ancestors would be appalled,
Forget hellenistic-we traded Greeks for geeks and lost it all!
And I can't point, cause I'm just one of em-
Heck, who's got money or guts to go all in.
But I can't help but think that it's a sin
How we traded big thinking for aesthetics and a new spin.
And who doesn't love a shiny new thing?
We've been trained to consume like we're in the ring,
We're that motherf****n parrot that they taught to sing.
To the dinging and the ringing of walmart doors opening.
And true that's a cynical thing to say-
But it's true at the end of the day
we're so wrapped up on how every little thing looks that
when my best friend wears a scarf, people think he's gay.

(Here's where that girl with the sexy voice sings that tight hook)

You see we left the big to go small
Try and make consumption feel personal
But it's kinda hard to make a person feel hella special
When their one in a million in your f*****g shopping mall.
Because theirs something to be said about the handmade-
Handwritten notes delivered with lemonade.
Why else would things like Kickstarter work
And why do artists make work even if their not paid?
You see we forget the human factor
That fact that humans are f*****g more than actors
That adding up our parts isn't enough to explain this
Love, hate, souls, fate and last words shit
We've learned over time that bigger isn't always better
But design is on the right track when it's human centered.
When we admit that our goal of design is the betterment
Of the human race, we become unfettered.

(That sexy hook again)

We keep talking about global change,
But personally I think that it's kinda strange
That we focus so much on building a better world
When our brothers and sisters are burdened with pain.
Cause you see life is hard,
And I'm that white guy who's barely been marred
By the nasty side of life-I rarely see strife
Cause I was raised in the suburbs by parents with credit cards.
But I've seen the scars life can bring
When a kid's situation is sexually abusing
But why the hell am I still talking
About this shit in a rap about designing?
But I can't get out of my head
That perhaps It's not about big or small in the end.
That perhaps its about reaching out to a friend
Responding with honesty to the signal they send.
Perhaps that's a little to spiritual for us
Design is after all physical stuff
But if in the end we all end up as dust,
I'd like that dust to be ash cause I'll burn up bright if I must.

(Repeat that sexy hook till you end)

Anyways, just thought this would be a nice change of pace for you. If you're looking for a beat, I sorta used Watsky's Sloppy Seconds as a background track in my head. Here's the link if you're into that stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCEsveSK5to&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PLblxhEQYeadFpbYhpeSWgk1zS2dK7YqOk

Also, this was off the TED Talks video by Tim Brown

[On City's and People]

Cities are an odd mixture of careful planning and instinctual human behavior. In order for a city, to grow, it must have people pouring into it, and a city must be physically growing in order for that to happen. Because of this, one city may grow for a variety of reasons: need of housing, economic stimulation, simple additions to homes. With such disconnection happening within city growth, it is no surprise that some city growth seems to not make sense, giving a sense of confusion to the city. It is then the job of the designer, be he architect or civil engineer, to help these divided interests grow together as one, cohesive unit.

Realizing this duality of growth in a city will help us understand how best to help people understand their surroundings better. The realization that the city is constantly in flux; a pond in rain, and each ripple a person's decision to change the city. Our goal as designers should be to create a flexible pathway through the madness, rather than trying to perfect and solidify a solution. Life is constant change, a dance of repetition and contrast, and design must help us navigate the change.

[Using graphics in Wayfinding]

The purpose of using graphics is to communicate information or ideas. Successful graphic use combines the context with the image, to bring about clearer, more precise understanding and feeling.

In wayfinding, the graphics must be created for the context of movement. They need to be easily understood and readable from a distance. They need to help people understand their surroundings, not confuse them. Good wayfinding is focused on getting people from point A to point B.

Now let's go back and look at basic Gestalt theory. We want to accomplish coherency through visual means. In Gestalt theory, repetition produces understanding and contrast produces interest. If you want to help people understand they are on the right path, repeat a graphic. If you want to signal a change of direction or node, use a contrasting graphic.

[Ethnography]

(This post is based of the two articles, What is Ethography? and Ethnography: a Primer.)

Design is based in problem solving; we design in order to relieve, expedite, and avoid painful and uncomfortable situations. The act of making/creating has been apart of the human history since it's beginning; we made shoes so we could walk on rocks, we made saddles to ride horses, we made cars so we wouldn't get thrown off of horses, and we made seat belts to make crashing a less hazardous experience.

In this society, we pursue, perhaps with obsession, a painless life. We desire this so much that we have dedicated an entire group of people to fix our problems. Yes, I am talking about designers.

Now a rudimentary way of describing the purpose of design is ultimately to relieve pain and to bring pleasure (I don't think this is an exhaustive definition, seeing as it only focuses on the carnal, animalistic needs of humanity and completely ignores our spiritual longings, which I believe design does touch on; however, it will suffice for this article). Therefore as designers, we need to be very good at discerning what people like and dislike.

This may seem like an easy task; however, we must factor in the complications our world has to offer: Cultural/social/religious differences, political stability/instability, poverty/hyper wealth, etc. Once we've added in these difference between people, not to mention personality differences, we find that identifying the roots of problems may be trickier than we thought.

Enter Ethnography: the process of identifying problems at their root, and finding solutions that fit within the system. A process which all designers should familiarize themselves with. The purpose of Ethnography is best stated in six maxims:
1) To discover meaning.
2) To understand norms.
3) To make powerful connections.
4) To be worldly
5) To identify barriers.
6) To observe reality.
These are the six goals of Ethnography. If we can identify these, we will be able to properly understand the true problem in need of solving.

"So Cameron, how does one go about answering these questions?" you might ask, to which I would tell you to read an article on ethnography, because I'm no expert. However, I can give you a basic layout of the process.

The first step of ethnography is to prepare: identify the problem, it's location and context. This is the pre-production phase to use a film term. Before even stepping into the field, you should research context and have base knowledge of the culture and people you're going to be observing. Finalizing a game plan would be your last step: How are you going to observe? What steps will you take to get information? Who is bringing the snacks? Answer these important questions before moving on.

The next step of ethnography is observation. This is the heart of ethnography, where the magic happens. Go out into the field, observe, photograph, record. Be the fly on the wall and capture reality at its finest.

The last step is analyzation. Take your data and dig into the facts. Note patterns, flukes. See how people have adapted to the problem, and see where their adaptations have fallen short. Discuss with your team how to best solve these problems. Then finalize a plan of attack. An attack of good design in order to solve a problem and better the world that is.

Ethnography is a highly important first step in order to implement good design. It allows you to understand the human factor in the issue, and allows you to see how your product might actually help or possibly hurt a situation. And at the very least, you'll get to people watch, which is always fun.

[Wayfinding]

Our choice of location for the wayfinding project was The Underground at Wescoe Hall. I started by going there and taking photos.

The first thing I noticed was that there was not a single sign pointing people to The Underground until you were in the underground. Seriously, take a look

No sign here

Or here

Good Lord, am I still going the right way?

My mother warned me against sketchy halls...

Well there it is! 

In other words, unless you get lucky, you're going hungry.

So, I thought it would be a nice touch to add just some preliminary signs digitally. Perhaps even a color strip path.

As a group, we then went to The Underground to observe how people interacted with it. We found three main problems as we observed: 1) It was difficult to find. 2) The chairs were being used inefficiently, and 3) The traffic flow through the food court gets easily congested. These have become the focus of our wayfinding project, the problems we will try to solve.

[Oh hey, 2014]

Well hey there-didn't see you hiding in the dark over there!

Anyway, it's 2014 now, and I'm pretty excited. And that's saying something, because it's against my policy to get excited.

Firstly, I have a girlfriend. So that's exciting. I know that only my prof's will read this and be like, "what the hell, I didn't need to know that." But I did, and it's nice and stuff.

Secondly, I was able to get a bit of Illustration done. Not a ton, but I made a few fun things:

{1}
I made this box set of cards for a Christmas gift. I illustrated them, then printed them off and made a cute little box for them. It's real sweet

Adorable, I know.

{2}

I managed to get inspired enough to crank out an illustration piece in the style I love most: cut out. I built a model using hand cut and painted paper pieces, then photographed it. It's like playing with paper dolls. But more manly (which now I sound sexist, as if guys shouldn't play with paper dolls, but really, they shouldn't.)

{3}

Finally, I was able to break out the ol' paints and just do some paint on canvas stuff. It's been fun.

And I know that self portrait of me looks super bipolar and disturbing, but I'm really not that way. I just wanted to use dark purple as a shadow. And every artist has to have a tortured self portrait, right?

Anyway, that's been my break. In case you were interested.