Hello numerous blog readers,

Yes, that was sarcastic. Moving on, I’ve recently received a rather large shipment of books that will double as additions to my design library (which is small) and as research sources for this (and probably many more) projects. And I’d just like to say, books are fun. My wife knows I have a weakness for well-designed books and I am therefore cautious to not buy too many, but the ones I recently got are some that I have wanted to buy for quite some time. Among them are:

You are not a gadget, Jaron Lanier

White, Kenya Hara

Alone Together, Sherry Turkle,

Designing Design, Kenya Hara

Muji (rizolli press)

Naoto Fukasawa (phaidon press)

Marks, Pentagram

I now have enough fodder to more accurately find the correct resources that I need for this project in my own library! Fun stuff. But on a more serious note, I think that the book-as-artifact has played such an important part in my life that it really does sway a lot of my thinking about where “the book is going” and the role of technology as it relates to design and objects that have historically been physical. I think Roberto is touching on some similar concepts for his research project on “the google effect”, and I think where my project is heading is more towards a kind of design that is reacting against the unchecked, uncharted move of technology and its (often undiscernable) effect on the way we think, feel, and life. Can design challenge presuppositions about what we “need” in a constructive, positive way? I hope so…

Christopher Frayling’s essay, entitled “Research in Art and Design” was an enlightening read as an introduction into the milieu of design research. Truly there is a lot in this realm I am unfamiliar with, and the course thus far has been quite helpful in getting me up to speed, so to speak. A few things I found interesting from this reading are below, and they act as a kind of summary of the article as a whole:

“The popular image of the fine artist as expressive lunatic does not allow sufficiently for the cognitive tradition in art – a tradition which has in fact been called ‘research’. Nor does it allow for the fact that art happens in a social, technical and cultural world.

…The popular image of the designer as style warrior – superficial, trendy, obsessed with surfaces and signs – does not allow sufficiently for the research and methods tradition in design, or indeed for the tacit use of those methods by designers – to say nothing of applied semiotics.

..doing science is much more like doing design.” (Frayling, 4)

In these paragraphs I can very much see the ‘burden’ of the notion of research into art and design – at a fundamental level, design research bucks against societal presuppositions about the realm of “art and design” which may not be wholly accurate. Similarly, the social perception of the scientist:

“critical rationalist, engaged in fundamental research and shouting things like ‘Eureka’ or ‘it’s a crazy idea but it just might work’ – the image against which a lot of research tends still to be judged, is equally wide of the mark.” (Frayling, 4)

I think much of this shift has to do with realms of study that I’m not nearly qualified to talk about in depth – but the global cultural shift towards pragmatist philosophical presuppositions and naturalism (at least in most western and developed nations) seems to have clearly influenced the way society percieves the role and legitimacy of art and design in search for “truth” or legitimized conclusions drawn from research. How immensely frustrating it can be sometimes to push against the notion that a designer is a “page decorator” or a “style advisor” – or even to be asked, “now, which do you like more – form or function?” I think on my better days I take these kinds of questions in stride and am optimistic about changing perceptions but sometimes it is frustrating.

Since we’ve been engaged with some really great readings and talks, (I’m currently thinking about a ted talk by the founder of Design Within Reach, Rob Forbes) and in his talk, he cites the importance of specific places and methods of observing that can act as inspiration for the designer. What I’ve kind of always instinctively done – carrying around a camera with me and shooting tons of pictures – was codified in this talk as one of these practices. I think it’s fun for me to understand that these practices really are integral to being and becoming a good designer, and they’re something that I would just be doing even if I wasn’t a designer. In this way, it’s confirmation that I’m in the right field.

For me, sketching, photography, and poetry have historically been the primary avenues from which inspiration comes. I think for me, my faith plays a large role in each of these different methods of ‘observing’ as well, because it colors all of them and is a lens by which I can understand the world. With all that said, it’s really fun to be able to be disconnected from deadlines, deliverables, etc. and just enjoy design as an act of free creativity. Stefan Sagmeister alludes to this in a ted talk he gave where he explains why he purposefully takes off 1 entire year every seven (I think that was the cycle) so as to be removed from those pressures and be in an area where he can more freely observe and create. I’m not sure if that cycle would be an aspiration for me, but the thrust behind it is admirable.

I very much agree that as an aspiring design leader, one must be engaged and reading challenging, enjoyable, and informative material. In terms of design journals or magazines (at least, magazines that have a thrust towards writing and critical thinking and theory), I’ve been enjoying Design Issues (one of the partners of my firm has an article in the forthcoming issue – http://www.mitpressjournals.org/di), and Process Journal. (http://www.publishedbyprocess.com/) Process Journal is awesome because it addresses both visual culture (visually) and the theoretical backings behind this culture, with engaging interviews and studio overviews. It’s also got stunning work – this is my major complaint with almost all magazines one might find on the shelves in the graphic or visual arts section; they are either replete with substandard work or they’re 80% ads. Process journal has little to no ads, and is awesome work. That’s my plug.

But regarding the issue of what I’ve been reading lately, probably this manifesto is the most exciting and most closely related to the topics of interest for my literature review:

http://www.twbta.com/cup_print.php?p=wc&id=2204

It’s called “slowness” by Tod Williams and Billie Tsien architects and touches on the notion of how we are losing touch with physical artifacts, and the connection that we have with physical artifacts, making, and memory. They write:

…This is a lamentation for lost tools and a quiet manifesto describing our desire for slowness.  We write not in opposition to computers- in fact we are in the midst of bringing them into our studio- but rather it is a discussion about the importance of slowness.  We write in support of slowness.

…“There is a secret bond between slowness and memory, between speed and forgetting.  Consider this utterly commonplace situation: a man is walking down the street.  At a certain moment, he tries to recall something, but the recollection escapes him.  Automatically, he slows down.  Meanwhile, a person who wants to forget a disagreeable incident he has just lived through starts unconsciously to speed up his pace, as if he were trying to distance himself from a thing still too close to him in time.
In existential mathematics, that experience takes the form of two basic equations: the degree of slowness is directly proportional to the intensity of memory; the degree of speed is directly proportional to the intensity of forgetting.”
Slowness  Milan Kundera

…Our desire to continue to use the tools of the hand, even as we may begin to use the computer, has to do with their connection to our bodies.

…We have written a Mission Statement for the office:
Whatever we design must be of use, but at the same time transcend its use.
It must be rooted in time and site and client needs but it must transcend time and site and client needs.
We do not want to develop a style or specialize in any project type”

That’s just a bit, but it’s exciting stuff and stuff I really believe in as a designer and as a person. For example, I have a “dumbphone” from like 2002. I’m not on facebook, or twitter, or myspace, or any of those sites. I only recently got a website for my personal work. I’m super limited with the time I spend on the internet – and intentionally so, for so many reasons. My wife and I don’t have cable. Haha! I will end there. Would love to hear your thoughts.

Justin

As this topic has really sparked my interest related to the discussion board question, there are a few organizations that seem to have begun really diving into an exploration of the future of the book. I’m sure there are plenty more – people who have been investigating this for years. But the two sources I found most interesting were The Institute for the Future of the Book (http://www.futureofthebook.org/) – almost a blog of projects, ideas, and notions that relate to that central question. The second was (no surprise I’m sure) IDEO’s website – they have done a project asking “what is the future of the book”? (http://www.ideo.com/work/future-of-the-book)

This work is really compelling to me because they’re asking a lot of questions that seem more than relevant, and the video synopsis of what I’m sure was a very long project is compelling and fun to watch. In summary of their research, they eplained the three main conceptual approaches this way:

“The first concept, “Alice,” turns storytelling on its head by making narratives non-linear and participatory. With Alice, the story world starts bleeding into the everyday life of the reader. Real-world challenges, like acting on a phone call from the lead character, or participating in photo based scavenger hunts, unlock new aspects of the story, and turn other readers into collaborators or competitors. Alice is a platform for authors to experiment with narratives, to allow their stories to transcend media, and to engage fans in the storytelling process.

The second concept, “Coupland,” makes book discovery a social activity by allowing readers to build shared libraries and hear about additional texts through existing networks. Coupland makes it easy for busy professionals to stay on top of industry must-reads. Businesses can assign book budgets to their employees and build collective libraries through a group-licensing model. Personal recommendations, aggregation of reading patterns, and the ability to follow inspiring individuals and groups help ensure that Coupland users always are tapped into the latest essential content within and outside of the organization.

The third concept, “Nelson,” connects books to commentary, critique, and contextual information, letting readers explore a topic from multiple perspectives. Nelson reinforces the role of books as carriers of knowledge and insight. Readers can explore polarizing material and see whose word currently has the greatest impact on popular opinion and debate. Layers of connected commentary, news, and fact-checking augment the core book content—providing greater context and encouraging debate and scrutiny.”

For me, the most compelling one was the first, “Alice”, as it presents an approach to news media that seems exactingly unbiased and nonpartisan. The least appealing to me was actually “Nelson” - re imagining the notion of what fiction or narrative writing can be. This was actually rather unappealing to me since I’m not so excited about the idea of “mash-ups”, the death of the author, etc. It’s a hard road to navigate I think because there surely is a place for this kind of “new media” where the audience and the author (or producer and consumer) are one and the same, but I just don’t think literature as such is the place. Unless you’re into situationism and then it makes total sense. These are all rather early thoughts though; I would love to study this more.

It seems I have found myself asking and answering this question more often lately than maybe I would have anticipated before starting my master’s degree at SCAD. As I’m coming from an architecture background, my experience in explaining what it is that I “do” professionally was usually fairly straightforward: “I design tall buildings.” Or, “I can make a house”, etc. The notion that there is a fairly large overlap (especially in terms of design education and design thinking) between architecture and graphic design is fairly foreign to most people, unless they’re in a creative field (which many of my friends and family are not). Additionally, I’ve found that with freelance work, the need to explain “services” that I can provide, and especially the methodological way in which I approach design (at the conceptual or process) has increased over the last year in a big way. I think this has really stretched me as a person and a designer because it’s meant I need to know how to talk about what I do – how to communicate about it – and that in itself is almost a design problem.

With all that said, I would say that graphic design, to me, is first a subset of “design” generally. When I think about design, I think about the notion that intention / purpose is what differentiates it from pure art (at least, that’s been a good functional definition for me). So, graphic design is a subset of design and therefore is concerned with intention. I think what further delineates graphic design apart from other design disciplines (architecture, industrial, etc.) is the notion of communication. So for me, graphic design is a way of thinking about visual, spatial, and formal problems that is fundamentally communication-oriented. I further believe that all design is also concerned aesthetically and functionally, and socially.

So I suppose a summary of that would be to say that graphic design is design that is concerned with communication and is expressed in a multiplicity of ways – some examples could be visually, spatially, programmatically, theoretically – and this design is working aesthetically, functionally, and socially. I do think the notion of “upstream and downstream” in design thinking is appropriate; so there are facets of design that occur purely in the conceptual / thinking / upstream phase of the process, and there are facets of design that occur in the executional / downstream phase of the process – I see both as “design”.