[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.

[That essay was not as short as you said it would be...]

Seriously? That essay was twenty-four pages long! That's not a "very short essay" in my book. I mean, it's not a "horridly long essay" Or a "almost killed me essay" either, but still. Don't lie, it's a sin.

Also, may I note that that essay was as pretentious as you can get? I swear, it's like he wasn't even speaking english sometimes. Admitted, it is fun to write big words sometimes, but it's not fun to read them. Jeesh!

Anyways, where was I... Ah yes. The essay.

As I struggled through this essay, two themes struck me: one being the perception that a photograph is an objective capture, and two being the ethical abuses of the photograph. What is it about the photograph that has caused it to leave such an interesting history? What in it's nature shapes our thoughts as such?

Let us look at the nature of the first photographs. They were grainy. They had no color. If the subjects moved or the camera shifted, the images would come out blurry. So what shaped the viewers mind to see the photograph as "objective"? Great painters were able to render masterpieces with an almost lifelike aesthetic, but photographs earned the title of objectivity.

Let us compare the photograph to the painting; the key difference we see is in the presence of the artist. In a painting, even the most finely rendered paintings, we can see the hand of the artist in the medium. We can see the strokes no matter how well hidden they are. In the photograph, however, the artist is invisible. The essay talks about (in its horribly overblown English) how people don't think about the photographer-they rather think of the camera. This gives the picture the appearance of being self existent, created ex nihilo by the situation itself. Thus people think them to be interpretations of real life.

Which leads to my second observation: the unethical use of photography. In the essay the class was barbarically forced to slave through, I observed many instances where humans were photographed and organized, the soul purpose being to note their flaws and categorize them into a certain "level of human". What about photography brought about such inhuman categorization?

If photography does not offer objectivity, it does offer something that is often mistaken for objectivity; verisimilitude, or the appearance of reality. Where an illustrators hand would be apparent for a scientist, a photograph gives him the feeling of actually being there with his specimen. With a photograph, he can closely observe his subject as if they are a frozen specimen. He can note the height of their height, length, width, and expression, taking careful note of every detail without actually being there, which leads to the root of our issue; because photography offers the appearance of reality, the scientist or observer feels he is in reality, and that the photograph is the whole of the reality of his subject. Thus, he only knows what he sees. He does not see the man playing with his children or speaking to his wife, interacting with friends. All he sees is the man with the stick, standing naked.

One photo that stuck out to me in that ostentatious essay was Front and Profile View of Malayan Man by John Lamprey. We see a naked Malayan man, holding a staff in front of a grid, rigged up for the photo. The nature of the photograph tells us, "This is all that there is to see. This is the whole of the man." But what we forget is that we have pulled the Malayan man out of his home and under the microscope. We forget that he is a man, and not just a specimen.

Ok...I didn't actually hate the essay. I just get overdramatic sometimes.