In recently watching a rather long but extremely engaging keynote presentation to the 2009 Handheld Learning Conference in London entitled “Reflections on Learning” by Malcolm McLaren, which was a recent assignment for Graphic Design 702 (Methodological Studio), I’ve found myself mulling over his thoughts quite a bit.

As a kind of initial caveat to my reflection, I would say that I see as a genuine challenge before me as a younger designer the idea that creating authenticity in a “karaoke culture” (which he defines as a setting in which meaning is conveyed by proxy and life is lived by proxy) can be done in a way that is essentially positive, uplifting, upbuilding, and progressive (in the best sense). I say this to push against, in a way, the example set by his life, which achieved a kind of authenticity but which is not the kind of authenticity I find attractive or desirable because it “stayed within the system” but just swung to the other proverbial side of the pendulum. That is to say that his work and ideas (a good example is the rise of the punk movement in England) was fundamentally reactionary, subversive, and (in a noble way) destructive. I believe it’s possible to create beautiful authentic work that has a destructive effect on all inauthenticity but which is not in itself destructive, if that makes sense. With that said, I want to affirm many of his points and communicate that they were encouraging and also in many ways inspiring and motivational at a deep level.

His comparison between a culture of necessity (as exemplified by post-World War II London) and a culture of desire (as exemplified by our current culture) was extremely sobering. In my own experience traveling to impoverished countries (parts of Kenya, Sierra Leone, Peru, Ecuador, Mexico, the Dominican Republic) one of the most stinging senses that always comes home with me is how disconnected I am as an American, generally speaking, with the raw needs that exist in the rest of the world. I’m so thankful I live in the US, and have been given the opportunities that I have, but I find it personally important to connect with a deep sense of need and dependence to continue creating authentic designed artifacts because I am connected to this sense of need as a person (and am hopefully continuing to become a more authentic person).

I also appreciated these quotations by McLaren:

“In a karaoke world, you’re free of any real responsibility beyond that moment of performance.”  (McLaren, 8:15)

“Authenticity is discovering something that is real, that can only be achieved through a struggle, that romanticizes the messy process…becomes a noble pursuit.” (McLaren, 8:40)

“In a karaoke world, everything and everyone is for sale.” (McLaren, 10:15)

And one of my favorite sections in his talk was where he began discussing ways of becoming this type of person, especially as it relates to the sphere of learning and of the process of becoming. He noted that he found it important

“To be a passionate observer…” (McLaren, 34:30)

“1. How to become a magnificent failure, and 2. How to live one’s life like a flaneur in Baudillaire’s day.” (McLaren, 35:23)

This entire talk reminded me of two people: an author and a painter: Alain De Botton and Andrew Wyeth. In having researched and written a fairly lengthy paper on Andrew Wyeth in graduate school and in writing a creative nonfiction essay in undergraduate school that was the second place recipient of a university-wide prize inspired by Alain De Botton’s books, I find much agreement between the essence of McLaren’s talk and these two figures.

All that said, I found his thoughts on authenticity, the place of technology, and his thoughts on culture generally to be extremely astute and encouraging, and I hope to continue to produce work that can be called “Authentic”. I think that’s probably the biggest compliment I could receive as a designer!
 

Reflect on the three process books shared during this unit. In your post, assess how each book design successfully and/or unsuccessfully communicates the designer’s ideation process and guides the reader through the creative process. Are there specific communication tactics that any of the designers use that you may want to integrate into how you present your own process?

I think each of the three process books shown as case studies within this unit’s curriculum communicate well each of the designer’s processes. As a brief overview, I was initially drawn to Jamie Turpin’s ‘table of contents’ image, maybe because we both come from a similar background (I gather she has a background in building arts) – but probably more so because I found the use of color and categorizing quite helpful. Within each of the broader categories of her process she incorporates much ‘finer-grain’ detail which the user can peruse if they desire – essentially, it functions much in the same way that a good poster does; there is a wealth of information and intrigue, and it’s available to the viewer at whatever level of engagement they desire. I think this can relate to my own goals and aims in communicating my design process because I want the method of communication to be both complex and simple, so that it can be “understood” in a sense at a glance, but also to have the robust information behind the brief overview that it actually does.

What was interesting about Jane Dorn’s process book was the well-integrated mix of book-quality typographic setting and ragged sketchbook scans. I think some of the best and most interesting design, architecture, and art books in existence today have found a way to strike a line between the informational and pragmatic realities of text and communication (fine typographic setting) and the messy, circular, cyclical, unpredictable nature of design process or artistic process. I think her process book is getting to this place where it’s achieving this kind of balance, and I find that quite compelling. I would like to strive for that in my own work someday, and maybe produce a “process book” which is both a compilation of sketches and messy scans, and a formal, well-composed book. Ironically, I found her process book itself more compelling than the actual final product for that project (but don’t tell her that!).  It was quite nice.

April Bliss takes a similar approach as Jane, though on my initial glimpse through her process book the first (and rather overwhelming) sense I got was that there was SO much information (maybe too much?). I think this gets at a notion I find often in my own work and in the representation of my design process – what do I show, and what do I not show? Probably a partial answer to this question relies on a good assessment of your target audience and also what it is that you’re aiming to say. But even with that said, I’ve been in situations with clients and in my job where I’m unclear as to whether or not I should show a little bit of process or a lot.

All of these process books were well-crafted, extremely thorough and varied in their approach. It makes me wonder if someone like Hugh Dubberly (whose current representations of design process are so polished and awesome-looking) has piles of his own process books like this laying around from the past. Who knows!

For this blog post, I’d like to share two sources that I’ve recently come across in continued thinking on my opinion paper for GRDS 701 – project B. Here they are:

http://www.ted.com/talks/carl_honore_praises_slowness.html

Review the models covered in Hugh Dubberly’s “How Do You Design?”. Have you identified any steps that should be added to your own creative process? Please provide justification for your thoughts.

In reviewing and reading through Hugh Dubberly’s book (that’s no article!), and in reading “Creative Briefs in Shifting Times” by Terry Lee Stone, I’ve definitely identified that at the very least, formalized creative brief-writing needs to be more fully integrated into my process. Thus far, the design work that I’ve done for clients has normally been rather informal, but I have found an increasing desire to formalize the processes that I automatically begin with any design process (one of which is the establishment of goals, expectations, schedule, information, etc.). I usually have done this at the beginning of the project, bundling it in with a Design Project Proposal document.

With that said, and regarding the actual design process, I found the following three examples to be most closely related to my own design process. I think a helpful additional note of information would be that since I work professionally for an architecture firm that is large enough to have project teams, these processes are often laid out for us well ahead of time by the design management. On my own projects, I find the following three examples are closely related to my design process (and the last one, humorously so). I think something that is of particular note is the presence of feedback loops and cyclical ‘sub-processes’ within the larger process – these could surely improve, but they are currently the basis of what I do.

In response to the question, “Have you heard about the concept of flow before this course?” I would have to answer, “no! But I wish I had!” It’s helpful to know it has a codified name. I think what is most helpful is the pairing of the two definitions below. One is a fairly concise summary of the idea, and the other goes very much in-depth. What a joy it truly is to find this sense of “flow” and wonder in a project – and I think for me, the biggest contributors to this experience are probably a freedom from fear of failure – as Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi states below. I think also that his definition seems to be fairly sequential in the sense that it’s moving in step with how my experience of flow often goes. I find that these projects sometimes come out wonderfully and sometimes come out without much ‘worth keeping’, but as he says, the activity becomes autotelic and is therefore worth it anyway. I think also that one of the most important aspects of helping my own creative process to be more open to ‘flow’ is good planning. If I have allotted enough time for each project, I am far more able to experience this. If I’m exhausted, or am running ragged, or have way too much on my plate, or my project is understaffed, flow can ‘flow’ right out the door. I suppose it’s kind of like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, right?

From the course material:

Passion, motivation, and curiosity often drive great creative minds. Have you caught yourself spending hours on hours completely emerged in something you are doing? Do you find a sense of joy and fascination with whatever activity it is? If so, you have experienced the concept of flow. Bestselling author and writer Steven Johnson describes flow: “it is more the feeling of drifting along a stream, being carried in a clear direction, but still tossed in surprising ways by the eddies and whirls of moving water.” [2]

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi describes the following as the building blocks for flow:

• “There are clear goals every step of the way.” When faced with a creative challenge, you must know what the goals are for the challenge and the specifics, so gathering enough information to identify these is critical.
• “There is immediate feedback to one’s actions.” This is about listening to your internal voice, your gut feeling that the direction you are going in is appropriate based on your goals.
• “There is a balance between challenges and skills.” You have taken on challenges, which you are fully qualified to solve, or resourceful enough to identify the resources needed for you to accomplish the goals. Remember the benefits of collaboration.
• “Action and awareness are merged.” You are on task and do not allow your mind to wander.
• “Distractions are excluded from consciousness.” You remove all distractions so you can focus. This may mean setting a specific room or office to work on the project away from computers, phones, or other distractions.
• “There is no worry of failure.” Since you have clear goals, you are focused and you have identified the proper resources to engage on the task, there is no reason to fear failure.
• “Self-consciousness disappears.” You lose the sense of self to focus on the task and not what others will think of you.
• “The sense of time becomes distorted.” Time flies when you are in this state.
• “The activity becomes autotelic.” You enjoy the process in itself and not because of the reward associated with it. [3]

Hi everyone.  Above is my in-progress ‘creative process diagram’ which is representative, in a rough way, of the process I go through when I’m designing. One thing I struggled with in terms of representation is how to show processes which are (in fact, process-based) and cyclical or somewhat redundant in nature. Concept development happens throughout the entire process, in a way, but there surely is a time when deadlines and the demands of design production require a kind of winnowing and letting go of ideating. So the overlapping circles are sufficient to show this dynamic for now.

I think considering my current skillset and recognizing my weaknesses, I most value skills and traits in others that are in the category of business management, or specifically, process management (design management). I can do these things, and enjoy doing them, but know that this is surely not my area of expertise, and really love working with others who are clearly skilled and gifted in these areas. I would love to learn more about these things!

For this post, I’ll briefly try to assess my presentation based on the criteria provided in the unit content. I think, for the most part, the presentation went well, but the two areas that I felt most lacking were that I had too much to cover, and that my visuals weren’t as compelling as I wanted them to be when I began the project.

Regarding the Presentation Introduction, I felt like the topic was fairly well introduced and there was sufficient background information provided with regard to how it was developed from a broader interest (that was in the “why do I care?” section). I think the tone of the presentation was fairly good (it’s odd to critique this for yourself), but I usually sound fairly monotone when I speak publicly so that’s something I need to work on. I think though the topic research was there and so I wasn’t lacking any information. Regarding vocabulary presentation, I tried my best to touch on the main terms that I thought might have alternate meanings in people’s minds, or might trip people up – that was difficult because I didn’t quite know my audience that well and didn’t have the time necessary to go in depth with definitions for all the terms. Regarding the visual presentation, part of what I was thinking with this presentation was to create a visual approach that was quite “unadorned” and “plain”, like a lot of the designers and designs I have been studying for this research project. With that said, I do think there could have been more visual examples of work that is represented by this design approach so people could connect the theories I was explaining with actual objects (usually good for designers). The presentation flow went fairly well, I think – I felt rushed, but got through it in just over 8 mins I think. That also has bearing on the timing; a bit long, so I could probably have whittled things down a bit more than I did. That was surely a big challenge with this project.

I hope that’s clear – it was a great learning experience from a number of aspects; I have never done a digital recorded presentation using powerpoint, indesign, photoshop, illustrator, and quicktime! It was a lot of programs but I finally found a workflow that worked best and produced a high quality file at a fairly low size.

From my previous post on this topic:

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”.

That was a few weeks ago (almost five – hard to imagine time has moved so quickly). I still agree with this definition, and am wary to add anything to it – in fact, I wish I could distill and distill it until it was at some kind of “essence”. Maybe in time I will do that. For right now, I have been inspired by some writings that support this definition of graphic design. One of which is by Tim Brown, and he says the following:

“Design thinking relies on our ability to be intuitive, to recognize patterns, to construct ideas that have emotional meaning as well as functionality, to express ourselves in media other than words or symbols.”

I say hooray to this addition to my definition because it clearly articulates a fairly ambiguous compound word: Design Thinking. This word is also somewhat trendy these days, like the word “Sustainable” (whose definition can be so loose as to be almost incoherent). Hopefully as time moves forward I’ll be able to collect more pertinent sources of inspiration for my changing and refining definition.

Wow. That took forever! Did anyone else sit for literally 12 hours straight combing through sources and finding connections and just typing? I haven’t done that for a while, and I can’t say that it was all entirely enjoyable, but I think I learned a TON and have a much clearer picture of the association between the various sources that I gathered. I also learned a lot about what works and what doesn’t in terms of creating complex association-maps. I think the concept map came out as a visually intriguing poster, but I’m not totally convinced of its usefulness simply because of how complex it is. I think it’s the kind of poster that draws you in and then you say “wow I have no idea what that is!” but hopefully after sitting with it for more and more time, you’re able to decipher the connections and understand things. Let me know what you think. 

In reviewing the Stanford D. School’s “Bootcamp Bootleg” document, the two research methods that seemed to jump out most clearly to me were Empathy Map and Assume a Beginner’s Mindset.  Both of these resonate with me and seemed like a way to approach design problems with humility and to be able to build trust and relationships with people that you encounter along the way.

What type of questions related to design do you think these methods would be able to help answer?

Assuming a beginner’s mindset would help greatly in terms of being able to approach a project with humility and be open to fresh and new discoveries that you may not have anticipated. I think this method would be able to help one answer really fundamental questions related to design that may have simply been “filled in” subconsciously by the designer by presuppositions or existing beliefs. The empathy map seems like a way in which a designer could diagnose and understand whether or not they were approaching the given problem in as objective and reasonable attitude as possible.

What type of information do you think they could help you to discover?

These two methods could probably help discover amazing things hidden in the “normal” of life and of design problems. I think this is often where true innovation lies – in seeing a problem you may have seen a certain way many times  in an entirely new light. Really “rethinking” from the ground up.

Reflect on the practical application of these methods in your own work.

Probably the most practical application of these methods in my own work occurs at the very beginning of projects when I am still formulating the idea – when it’s in this germinating stage, it’s still very fresh, new, and my mind is quite open to thinking differently (or wrongly) about a given problem. I have less to lose if there’s a big change because deadlines are far off.

Are there parallels between the methods discussed in this unit and those you have practiced?

Yeah, probably the two I am focusing on in this post have shown up somewhat in my design practice, in the sense that I always try to look at a problem with “fresh” eyes, understanding the design issues from a new and “youthful / beginner’s” perspective.

How closely does your methodology align with the methodology presented in this unit?

Well, I’ve clearly got a LOT to learn, and I think especially in the area of practical integration – these methods are not entirely new in theory, but I don’t actively use them as methods in all my design processes. They occasionally find themselves in there, or I use aspects of them.

Did the research presented offer new insight?

Probably a reminder that some of the most innovative, creative, and successful designs come from a place of humility and of openness when one approaches a problem. This is always something I need to remember, as it’s so fundamental for true innovation.