I came across this article a while ago, called Does Pop Sound Louder, Dumber, and More and More the Same? on Slate. The article summarizes a study revealing how algorithms were used to analyze pop songs of the 1950s to now, based on 3 metrics of harmonic complexity, timbral diversity, and loudness. The article states that “on the whole, popular music over the past half-century has become blander and louder than it used to be.” I think most of us are not surprised by that. But what I found interesting, and a prospective tie-in to my literature reviews/thesis topic is the particular fact that the study found that melodies and chords have gotten super simplistic. For example, the four-chord sequence I-V-vi-IV is everywhere. There is a hilarious YouTube video demonstrating the ubiquity of this sequence by mashing together a number of disparate songs using this chord sequence.

The video is funny, but it’s got me thinking about the practical applications of my exploration. This kind of chord sequence study would be very interesting to explore visually using a system that can represent musical behaviors through the transcription of music via design elements. It is making me think of all the possibilities of visual representations. For instance, songs with this chord structure could quickly be located if the visual “translations” were catalogued into a digital bank. Songs could then be compared to examine the use of the chord sequence, context, variations in melody, or to analyze them across or within genres/styles. If the output were available on mobile device, such as phone or iPad, perhaps some kind of analyzation capability could be built into it where users could quickly pull songs and compare them with each other. Perhaps they could manipulate them to see what they would look like (literally) in different keys, or to see how compatible different song combinations would be in a mashup. The applications range from didactic to practical. Teachers could use a digital application in the classroom to illustrate the behavior of music. It could be a tool to sharpen students’ ears and give them a different way of seeing music other than musical notation. Although such a system of visual representation could be prescriptive, it could also be descriptive. Musicians who doesn’t read music would have an alternate tool at their fingertips to allow them to take a detailed look at music and the different components of song for a myriad of uses. Although I originally was thinking of a more fine art approach to the output of my visual thesis, I think there are also a great number of possibilities with a digital application. Because I don’t have a strong background in interactive design or digital media (besides web design), if I decide to go this route, I’ll have to find a way to bring in some expertise. But the whole prospect of possibilities is very exciting!

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 like Jane narrative-style as she walks the reader through her methodology. Having said that, I did find that some of her steps were more thorough than others. For instance, the steps of initial brainstorming and exploring ideas was pretty thorough. However, there seemed to be a big gap between this step and the construction of the final product. I would have liked to see more deliberate exploration with elements such as color, type, and materials. Though I understand why she used her notes for some of the pages, I did feel that it was a bit of a short cut. I’m not sure how closely an 18-year old would look at a bunch of pages of hand-written notes if they were just beginning in the field of graphic design. The concept of the circle and having the reader flip through a circle to be led through her methodology makes sense. However, I think this particular artifact could have had more impact if a little more time was invested in maximizing its potential on each page. I would also have put the content and justification of the content for the piece earlier in the process book, before seeing the final shots. One thing that I can learn from this process book is Jane’s note-taking. Taking cues from her neatness and compartmentalizing of different themes in her notes is something I could benefit from.

I was impressed with April’s research into the world of teens. Looking through her research shots, I have to agree… I also feel very old. This is why such thorough research is beneficial—it helps you realize how you may not be quite as in touch with a target audience as you would like to think, and therefore, need to approach it in a fresh way. Hence, the surveys, profiles, Facebook questions, image-gathering, etc. I could really benefit from integrating April’s thorough brainstorming methods as well, including word lists, collaborating, sketching, etc. Her thorough methodology can be seen in the fruit of her labor. I was really impressed with her final project: its wording/content, images and style clearly shows an understanding of her target demographic. The integration of QR code, bottle branding and sleeve all work harmoniously and effectively together to communicate her method in a fun, catchy and age-appropriate way.

Jamie Turpin’s process book was very impressive in her thorough definition and analysis of each phase. She seem to have an incredible amount of self-awareness about her methodology, which implies sharp observation. I was impressed when she said that she thoroughly explores 8-10 concepts per project, which for me is rather ambitious. I do think such a practice of requiring 8-10 conceptual developments would push my explorations further. I found Jamie’s sequence of picking a thumb, applying color, material, tone of inspirational images, etc. and expanding on the sketches and explorations to be very insightful and helpful to see on one page (pages 22-37). I also appreciate how she makes note of particular effects produced by color in her color explorations. I found her tips throughout her presentation to be helpful, such as branching out into industrial textures and unusual items when exploring materials. Through Jamie’s process, I learned a lot about how to make my recording of methodology a lot more thorough and detailed in order to arrive at better solutions.

I have narrowed down the “translatable” elements of music that I would like to focus on for Project B. These are: pitch, dynamics, timbre/quality of sound, and duration/time. I feel that these represent the most crucial aspects of music and also the ones that are most perceptible to the human ear (trained or not) and therefore are the most necessary for a visual representation. I have also decided not to attempt to translate musical principles. Just as in design, the principles of music are formed by the arrangement and behavior of elements. For instance, when a single note is played again and again, that creates repetition. This can be seen in the design realm, as when the designer places numerous dots on a line to create repetition. Therefore, there is no need to translate principles because they naturally manifest themselves through the arrangement of elements. I will be exploring some examples of how musicological principles would manifest themselves visually at some point in the paper.

The most natural parallel between music and design regarding pitch would be color, specifically hue. This is supported by the various color to pitch systems that have been created over the centuries by scientists, musicians, synesthetes, etc. the world over. I would, however, like to go with a system that is a little more formal and not just based on arbitrary matchings of color to pitch. This means using the sound frequency to light frequency matching. Without going into too much detail, each pitch matches up to a color in the light spectrum, so at least there is some scientific base to the parallels.

Once pitch to color is established, the dynamics (how loud or soft music is played) can be captured via color value or intensity. Although the actual color hue stays the same, the value can capture the softness or loudness of the music. Softness would be a very low value and loudness would be a very high value, quite intense.

Timbre or quality of sound is a bit trickier. This refers to what makes the sound of each instrument or voice different from the next. In the musical world, timbre is sometimes referred to as ton quality and color, and musical instruments are sometimes described as having a “warm” sound or a “dark” sound, corresponding to color associations. However, because color is a more accurate representation of pitch, I would argue that timbre is more related to texture. Although we refer to what emanates from the trumpet or the piano as music, it is essentially noise. Each instrument makes a different kind of a noise, and it seems to me that a more natural visual matching with noise is texture. The harp has a very delicate texture, while in contrast, the bass has a very heavy, sometimes abrasive texture. I realize that there is an element of subjectivity to this (I suppose every person perceives instruments in his or her own way), so I may have to do more research into the actual acoustics of different instruments in order to establish textural criteria.

Lastly, there is duration/time/rhythm, which is a biggie. The duration of time could be defined by a line, while pulse and beat could be defined by shapes on that line. Although meter is part of this family, it is not consciously perceived by the listener and, like musical principles will manifest itself naturally to those looking for it via pulse, beat and duration.

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.

First of all, I just have to comment that reading this book was very inspiring, not just to see the varying and amazing ways that other creatives think, but to be able to gather bits and pieces to integrate into my own methodology. My personal creative process is usually quite simple, as it has usually been just me doing contract work for a client or a project for school. However, reading through the various examples of creative processes in Dubberly’s manuscript has been helpful in shedding light on the areas I am most weak in.

One feature that stood out, among many of the examples, was the breakdown of the creative process into analysis and synthesis (a la Koberg and Bagnall). I know that one of my creative shortcomings is that due to time restrictions, impatience, etc., many times I do not spend enough time in the analysis portion. Often, I will begin analyzing and then be seized with some ideas that interrupt that design step, which causes me to jump ahead to the synthesis portion or on to the actual creating of the output. I think that if I spent more time on the analysis step (including research, or incubation per Graham Wallace), the ensuing steps would be a richer and more informed experience. I would have more options and connections to make due to having more information to draw from. Another way of viewing this is forcing myself to emphasize the diverging option before hitting the converging option (page 22).

I also was impressed by the diagram by Pahl and Beitz, particularly the section between specification and concept, including identifying essential problems, establishing function structures, searching for solution principles, combining and firming up into conceptual variants, and evaluating against technical and economical criteria (page 33). I suppose all these could fall into both analysis and synthesis steps, depending on whatever model you follow; in any case, these are some components listed that I would like to include more in my own process.

Although I do not think I am scientifically-minded enough to implement the strategy of Briggs and Havlick (page 37) I do like their inclusion of steps such as alternative hypothesis and parameter development. I suspect that I already these are more scientific terms for steps that I already include in my process, but sometimes seeing them from a different perspective helps to underline their importance.

Have you heard of the concept of flow before this course? If so, how did you learn about it?
I have not heard of the term “flow” as a formal concept. I have, of course, experienced it plenty of times without knowing what it was called.

Have you ever experienced “flow,” even if you did not know what it was called? If so, describe the process. If not, what steps will you take to train yourself to achieve it? Where do you anticipate inserting these steps into your current methodology?
I am certainly familiar with the concept of flow and have experienced it in a variety of ways (being in the zone with athletics, reading, writing, knitting, playing a piece of music, etc.). Related to flow in design-related processes, I find that I occasionally come upon small instances of flow in the thumbnail process, but mostly it occurs during the various rounds of comps. By that time, I have usually gotten closer to a solution and can anticipate the resolution soon. The heavy lifting of critical thinking has already been done and I can now have fun and relax. I am not really sure how to increase the experiences of flow in my design methodology, although I suspect it has something to do with keeping things fresh, whether it be experimenting with new research methods or brainstorming exercises. (It seems that when I have thoroughly researched or brainstormed, the ensuing steps flow smoother.)

Create a diagram that outlines the steps in your current creative process. Provide a short explanation of what each step entails. Comment on how effective you consider your process to be.

1. Research
2. Brainstorming
3. Thumbnails
4. Sketches
5. Refined comps
6. Execution

Because I was trained formally in graphic design (no previous experience in the field before entering the MFA program), my creative process looks exactly like what was described in our course content.

Though varying based on the individual project, research usually includes things like gathering statistics and information on the demographics of the target audience, synthesizing information to create profiles of target audience members, conducting interviews with relevant people, researching the field of interest, becoming informed about the client’s company, researching the competition, taking photos, etc.

Brainstorming usually occurs when the research has been gathered, culled through, refined and synthesized. My methods include bouncing ideas off people unrelated to the project, doodling in a sketchbook, creating moodboards, cutting out pictures of related or inspiring projects, creating word lists and concept maps, and other diagrams.

Thumbnails usually evolve out of ideas that I’ve hit on in the brainstorming portion or before. Although I am not very good at thumbs because I find it hard to sketch into small boxes, I try to force myself to do more than I am comfortable with, just to force out any extra ideas. I find that when I start slowing down with ideas for thumbs, I usually start getting pretty desperate and therefore, creative. The thumbs that I force myself to do sometimes offer the most effective solutions just because I’ve forced myself out of the box.

When I’ve done enough thumbs that provide some viable directions, I’ll choose the ones to develop and sketch them bigger and with more detail. Sometimes this step in the process leads to more innovation and new directions.

When I feel I’ve gotten far enough with the concept to do something digitally, I’ll create a number of variations on each theme. Sometimes I need to do a bunch of variations on several themes and sometimes I know from the start that a certain idea is IT, the one I want to see through to the end. This step in the process usually has the most iterations, especially with clients. The drilling down can take several rounds to get to something both I and the client can latch onto.

The execution naturally occurs when the everyone is satisfied with the last version of digital or refined comps.

Although in theory, the process is pretty foolproof, I find that sometimes I need to implement strategies to get me out of just going through the motions and to hit upon true creative thinking. For instance, I often realize that my brainstorming processes can benefit from different methods to jumpstart my creative juices.

Considering your current skill set and recognizing your weaknesses, identify the skills and/or traits you would value and welcome in collaborating with others on a major design project. Briefly define the type in your answer to provide context to your post.

When I was at HOWLive in Boston this past year, I had the opportunity to attend a brainstorming workshop with David Sherwin of Frog Design. It was a great opportunity to try out new methods of brainstorming with others sitting at the same table (all of who were seasoned designers). I was
blown away by how quickly my table mates could toss out new, different and creative concepts. I could sense a general openness, energy, and flexibility related to the way they absorbed and thought. I felt positively slow and rusty compared to them. Based on that experience, I would say that my greatest weaknesses stem from lack of experience and practice. I think that my tablemates were more adept at being creative because they had been working at it for a much longer time and more consistently than I. (This aligns with Mobley’s thought that creativity is learned over time, as cited in August Turak’s article “Can Creativity Be Taught?”)

I would say that in my limited experience in the workplace, I value collaborating with people who think from different perspectives from me—for instance, those who think from a more scientific or rational place, or those who have different backgrounds as me. I myself tend to be more subjective and emotion and I appreciate the balance and new vistas provided by logical thinking. I also like working with people who have design experience in areas that I don’t, such as type design, or package design. I have noticed that I can sometimes tend to dwell too much on an idea or get stuck on a particular avenue, so I prefer to work with people who work quickly and in high volume.

Here are my thoughts on my audio-visual presentation:

Presentation introduction: I tried to introduce the topic of the presentation clearly and succinctly, both verbally and by spelling it out in the 2nd slide: “Is it possible to visually represent music formally, consistently and accessibly for practical purposes?” Although I did give a reason for my focusing on the topic (the benefits of the functions and applications of a system of visual representation for music) I did not give too many specifics on the actual process I went through to decide on the topic itself.

Presentation tone:
This is a pretty subjective aspect to try to assess myself on, but because I practiced several times and knew the content of my presentation very well, I thought I demonstrated confidence and competence. The fact that I used a script also helped me to know exactly what I needed to say.

Vocabulary presentation:
Because music is such a big field and some of the more technical terms can be lost on those who have not formally learned them, some of the references I made (e.g. regarding melody, rhythm, repetition sequences, etc.) may not have been so clear. This is one reason why I wish I had more time than 5-7 minutes for the presentation. I tried to make my presentation as compact as possible, but because I am exploring a totally different field other than design, it brings its own vocabulary to the mix and I simply did not have time to define every single term that I wanted to. I will say that I made a definite attempt to define each new major research concept that I covered, such as musical notation, color to pitch association, etc.

Visual presentation:
The audio side of my presentation was jam packed with information, so I tried to keep my visuals as simple as possible, while also correlating in the most straightforward way. Although my visuals were not the flashiest, I did attempt to make sure that they were aesthetically pleasing, relevant, and adhered to basic design principles.

Presentation flow:
I worked on the script for my presentation based on my outline for Part A. I think this was really beneficial in keeping the flow moving forward and in a directed way. Also, because of the time limit, I was really forced to think about how to present all my information in the most logical way possible.

Presentation timing:
I think that my presentation was just over 7 minutes. Our time limit was 5-7 minutes. I practiced several times and kept whittling down the information I included, but still didn’t make it under 7 minutes.

What does your definition of graphic design look like now? Has it evolved since the start of the course? Why? Cite the course readings and/or additional readings to support your definition.

My thoughts on graphic design have definitely changed in the past few weeks. After reading through our course material up to this point and conducting my own research processes for Project A, I am tempted to define graphic design as a field of research more than anything else. I find myself defining graphic design less in terms of the output and more in terms of the processes to reach that output. I have gained a deeper appreciation of the methodologies that designers should exercise when attempting to produce relevant, efficient, effective, socially-minded solutions. The iceberg metaphor seems to be a good picture of graphic design; one may see the tip of it and although it may be stunning and beautiful, there is an enormous structural mass beneath the water that provides the foundation of the visible portion. In like manner, although the audience or user may see a beautiful end product, what they don’t see is the hours of research (data gathering, qualitative/quantitative research, brainstorming methods, concept maps, etc.) that go into producing that solution.

Articles such as Sharon Poggenpohl and Dubberly’s articles in particular effectively contributed to changing my perspective on the kind of research and collaboration needed in our field today. I had previously seen the graphic design as individuals working primarily alone and occasionally together. Fortuitously, my type theory class has also yielded some parallel research into previous examples of effective graphic designers. As we covered the Renaissance period, it became clear that those type designers who played more than one role, who collaborated and used their wider knowledge of mathematics, science, art, and cultural influences were able to create effective solutions and breakthroughs. (E.g., Nicolas Jenson, Geofroy Tory, Albecht Durer, etc.) This organic, interdisciplinary approach is (or should be) an integral component of methodology.

I do still hold that one of the main goals of graphic design is to communicate effectively. However, my perspective has shifted to consider effective communication as on the output end of the process. The bulk of the work done in the graphic design field should be research, which would naturally result in the incorporation of an effective means of communication.

So I want to delve into the topic of visual music, based on the book Visual Music, to flesh it out a bit for my literature review. Visual music is more than a field, but a culture of expressing music visually in a variety of ways. I would emphasize the term “express” versus “translate” or “represent.” In general, visual music is completely a subjective form of expression. Although the authors of Visual Music use the term synesthesia loosely, they do so not in reference to the scientific phenomenon, but to the larger belief in the union of the senses or the interchangeability of sensory perception.

The strict definition of synesthesia is the manifestation of sensory perception via the sensory experience of another. For instance, a musician may see a certain color whenever a certain key is played. This phenomenon is genetic and only found in 1% of the population. Furthermore, the experiences of synesthesia varies from person to person.

Visual music’s looser interpretation implies that the visualizing of music is not limited to synesthetes, and instead refers to artists experimenting with ways of capturing music mostly through abstract and multimedia visual art, starting in the early 1900s. It is a more metaphorical and purposeful duplication of that phenomenon. In this sense, visual music encompasses a wide variety of methods and output.

One output is abstract painting. There were a number of painters who worked to put on canvas the “emotional intensity, structural integrity, and aesthetic purity that they attributed to music.” Such painters included Kupka, Whistler, Ciurlionis, Schoenberg, Kandisnky, and Klee. In their paintings, one can see the individual’s sensibilities and how they interpret music. Though each strives to capture different elements of music, they do so in vastly different styles. There is the swirling gradations of intense color by Ciurlionis and the bright, specific shapes of Kandinsky. Klee and Valensi took a more formal approach with visible structural patterns of color and shape to express such musical aspects as polyphony and harmony.

Then there was the more formal, scientific and technical work of John and James Whitney, who used pendulums, optical printers, and other devices to transcribe sound as light, shapes and colors. The brothers also produced a number of films produced with these devices to correlate music to movement, shapes and light on a time lapse.

In the 1960s, light shows became a popular phenomenon, often in conjunction with musical concerts by bands such as the Who and Pink Floyd. Their shows used strobes, lights, and even chemical reactions to create a multi-layered sensory experience for the audience. Shows ranged from the psychedelic to the violent to the quiet, painterly approach, depending on the corresponding music.

It is worth noting that all the above mentioned explorations are just that. They exist as much for the exploratory process as the end result, and seek to provide an experience for the viewer rather than a tool with which to analyze music. Although visual music is a fascinating and continuously developing field, for the purposes of my topic, it is not concerned with a consistent, accessible, universal translation of musicological elements to visual elements. It is more of a catch-all term to indicate the many different ways of capturing the behavior of music via visual means, emphasizing the subjective role the artist plays in bringing their translations to life.

Review the Bootcamp Bootleg materials from Stanford’s d.school. In your entry, discuss at least two of the design-thinking methods presented in detail. What type of questions related to design do you think these methods would be able to help answer? What type of information do you think they could help you to discover? Reflect on the practical application of these methods in your own work.

I gravitate toward the beginner’s mindset because it seems to help with filtering out all the complications of (perceived) knowledge and getting down to the very basics. I can see how our vision gets clouded with what we think we know, or even what we actually know, while the real questions and solutions that need to be explored are left underneath all those distracting items. Trying to get honest answers from a variety of different viewpoints could lead to a change of direction and to the asking of even more crucial questions. For my literature review, I have been discussing my topic with a variety of people in and out of the field and have found some fresh answers to questions that I had assumed I already knew the answers to. I am now trying to arrange a discussion with someone in the music field in order to get answers from their perspective. I think it is dangerous for me to assume what I think musicians would be looking for as far as an alternative visual representation of music. Although I have a bit of a background in music, I would rather get the answers from someone who is really in the field and has a more current, salient perspective. I think here, it’s a case of seeking others’ experience because of a little knowledge doing more harm than good.

The second method that stuck out to me was the interview for empathy. The importance of interviews in conducting good qualitative research is obvious. But the quality of the results surely has something to do with the finesse of the interviewer. We’ve all seen horrible interviews on TV when the interviewer is clearly not in tune with the interviewee, merely goes off a list that s/he is reluctant to digress from, asks bizarre or close-ended questions, makes the interviewee feel very awkward and thus less open to give honest answers, etc. The ability to draw information out of an individual is a skill that takes planning (this goes hand in hand with the “plan for the interview” method) and experience. I don’t have all that much experience with interviews, so preparing and knowing what questions to ask and when to ask them is crucial. When I speak to people about my topic, I would like them to be able to feel comfortable expanding on the topic, even to beyond what I had originally thought they would talk about. One never knows what interesting ideas will come up in conversation, but it won’t come up unless I can figure out a way to effectively draw it out of them.

Are there parallels between the methods discussed in this unit and those you have practiced? How closely does your methodology align with the methodology presented in this unit? Did the research presented offer new insight?

Although most of the methods were new to me, I have some experience with a few of them. For instance, I have often created composite character profiles. I think this is key where the user experience (such as with web design or interactive design) or instances when a particularly response is needed (increased sales, etc.) is crucial. My method is pretty similar to the one outlined by the PDF in that I synthesize a character based both on the characteristics of users I have actually interviewed as well as research on the relevant population. I have limited experience with various kinds of brainstorming (as an individual and on a team) as well as interviews, but the descriptions here are excellent in that they provide variations, options, and the reasons for them. I have never really explored the more kinetic methodologies (e.g. stoke or bodystorming) but when I hit a rut, I might want to try the out next time!