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.

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.