Thought Paper 7: Joshua from Brute Labs & Rick Poyner on Authorship

Joshua’s visit from Brute Labs was really inspiring. I know that might sound trite, but as an aspiring designer approaching the real world, it is comforting to know what really is in our scope of possibilities as fresh-out-of-college designers. Knowing that he started off some of his projects by just doing something simple like making one shirt and selling it to make another shirt, etc reminded me that it’s going to take small steps to get to where I want to be in my career. His talk also reminded me not to be discouraged of shortcomings. I also learned something new when he talked about scaling things back when thinking about big projects. For example, he explained how he scaled down the idea of getting Africa clean water by saying that he wanted make and sell bags to help fund one water pipe in Africa. It was also refreshing seeing that he as well as the others involved seemed to be having fun. The whole reason why I decided to go the artist route instead of the math, which I love, route is because it was what truly made me happy and could never see myself getting bored with. Seeing that he still is so enthusiastic in what he does and that being an artist brought him so much new experiences really assured me that I made the right choice.

In the chapter, Authorship, in Rick Poyner’s book, No More Rules: Graphic Design and Postmodernism, he talks about the issue of authorship in the relationship of the designer and client. The definition of authorship becomes a bit hazy because one can argue that although the designer physically made the outcome, the client was the one who made the guidelines and vise versa. Although it may not be so easy in some situations, I think that when claiming authorship, each person involved in getting to the final product should be considered. For example, the client has the authorship of the idea and the designer has the authorship of how that idea is presented visually.

Thought Paper 6: Generosity and Sociality

I think the chapter from the book, “What We Want is Free,” called “A Call for Sociality” by Jeanne van Heeswijk fit in perfectly after our screen printing session for our Generosity City project. Heeswijk sort of criticized the term “generosity projects” as it was a name for a symposium that he went to. He called it an oxymoron. I completely agree, which is where I also think the line becomes a little hazy when talking about generosity. If generosity is thought of as a project, then the whole concept behind generosity being a selfless good deed without any intention of being noticed or rewarded is gone. Being a project, it is purposefully asking for attention. However, a project is also bringing people together, and if it’s goal is to be generous, then the project is not really being selfish. The term, generous, might just be the wrong idea for the project. This is where Heeswijk brings in the idea of sociality, coined by sociologist Scott Lash.

            Jeanne van Heeswijk uses the example of turning parts of a town into areas where the residents come together and interact with each other, acting as a community. In my opinion, I actually think that sociality is more progressive than generosity. I know they can’t really be compared because generosity is more of an instinct sort of thing rather than something that serves a purpose. However, in terms of projects, sociality makes more sense because the purpose is clearer and there is no hazy line of the definition of the term.

            Sociality as a concept is something I think designers need to try and call more attention to. Throughout this class we are talking about all the ways in which design can be used for good as opposed to turning viewers into consumers using deceiving and tricky tactics. We’ve covered propaganda and campaigns. I think that another idea could be sociality projects. Especially in this day and age, where people seem so disconnected whether by technology, competition to be at the top, money, etc, we could really use more ways in which we connect to each other again and interact within our own species instead of inanimate objects or being solely driven by individual goals.

Thought Paper 5: Emory Douglas

            Meeting Emory Douglas was a really inspiring and intellectually stimulating experience. During our intimate class lunch with him, he really seemed to know a lot about the world and the history of events that has affected the black communities. I reckon his vast sense of knowledge comes from being a member of the Black Panther Party, but I was so amazed at how he could bring so much history into a conversation. The things that he mentioned also were interesting themselves. Usually I am not a huge fan of the regular history, but hearing the specific stories he told and the way he eloquently told them kept me intrigued. Then when we got to the lecture part, I was also impressed at how much he had to say. I think he could go on for days! It’s so interesting to see how much he has taken in over the span of his life and how many works he produced! It’s amazing and makes me want to always have projects going on.

            Being a designer, we get caught up in the computer realm of things that sometimes that takes away from our creative juices. I think that his simple yet effective and well thought-out way of creating art is something that I want to always be doing throughout my career. I think that it will keep me in check with my artistic abilities. It will challenge me to not always depend on the computer and also allow my artistic abilities to run free. I think that this experience was very rewarding as not a designer, but rather as an artist.

            His techniques and skills seem so simple, yet when you think about it, much thinking and strategizing has to go through it. In his artwork, he had to think about the audience as well because the purposes of his pieces were to inform people and influence them in a certain way. That being said, he could not just make something for the sake of making it; he had to put a lot of thought into how he created his work. Meeting Emory Douglas has definitely re-opened my creative mind as sometimes the design world can suck you in so deep that you forget about the bigger picture.

Thought Paper 4

In reading chapter seven from Clean New World by Maud Lavin, I learned a lot about design goes beyond its expected realm of advertising. We are constantly talking about the ways in which design isn’t just advertising. Advertising has sort of become seen with a negative light because of all of their visual lies and pressures that they evoke. So of course, being a soon-to-be design graduate, I want to know that design isn’t a completely cold profession. After reading this chapter, I am more aware of the ways in which design has actually proven to be positive. Through art activism, groups such as Guerilla Girls, Gran Fury, and Barbie Liberation Organization are able to use design in order to bring awareness and hopefully change to social issues that need to be addressed. This is a particular interest to me as my thesis project revolves around changing society and connecting with the people. I believe that design can be positive when it actually connects with the people rather than try to control them.

What does generosity mean to me? Generosity is the act of doing something through the pure goodness of one’s heart. It means giving without expecting to also receive. However, I do think that there is a fine line between generosity and doing something for the sake of how it will make you feel or look. Being a FRIENDS fanatic, I immediately think of the episode where Phoebe tries to find a selfless good deed. She is unable to because even in her seemingly purest moment, she feels so happy after doing her deed that it becomes un-selfless. However, I think that if you don’t think anything of your act and then feel good about it later, then it is true generosity, because upon acting, it didn’t occur to you how you would feel after. I think generosity comes from the heart and shows who the very selfless people are in the world.

Richard Kamler

I have never been to an artist conversation before, so it was very surprising to me how everyone was really into it. It felt so scholarly in the art sense. They talked a lot about politics and art and about the term, politics, itself. They seemed to settle on the fact that the word has become so ambiguous. Anyways, it reminded me about how we were discussing the connection between advertising and design and its interchangeability. It’s interesting to see that these terms that are connected to art like politics and advertising that have a negative vibe to them. Does this make art negative? And if so how do we change it?

            I think this is what Richard Kamler answers on his own. He acts upon feeling and his emotions, a lot of it being of anger. This is how he uses art to change the world. He voices his opinion through art, leaving all viewers to connect on a mental and emotional level. He creates social change through evoking emotions of society on issues that motivate him to create art. Art to him is not a way of making money or trying to please anyone. It is based on his relationship with society and how he feels about certain things.

            One of the topics that caught my attention was the issue about the photographer who took a picture of a vulture, eyeing its prey, a baby. It was very interesting because at first instinct the thought, “What’s wrong with the photographer? Does he not have a heart?” comes to mind. But as everyone started commenting on it, his duty in the situation became more ambiguous. One person mentioned that it might be different because a woman’s first instinct would be to grab the child and go because of her maternal instincts. A couple people argued that he might have been doing his duty by taking this picture and bringing it back as awareness. They claimed that his duty is documenting things, as he is a photographer, thus he did his job. I still think he could have taken the picture and saved the baby, but that is only my opinion. 

Thought Paper #2

            This poster demonstrates the slogan “Make Love, Not War” of the sixties when the people were protesting the Vietnam War. It is an example of design as social change because it shows how the people in society really don’t want war, but how government obviously overrides it. I think it is an example of the people coming together and forming a voice through the means of design. It is social change because instead of letting government do whatever they want, it is sort of making everyone aware that we, the people, still have a voice. The change might not be the government changing their minds, but it is in society where we can voice our opinions and possibly press the government for change instead of just being quiet on the sidelines. It has also inspired other movements similar to those against other wars or call for change like Richard Kamler’s “Make Bread Not Bombs” project.

            For Project 1, I chose to do the Susan G Komen Breast Cancer Awareness campaign. This campaign has found multiple ways to create social change in the awareness of breast cancer. Through walks, t-shirts, bags, and much more paraphernalia, the world has definitely become more aware of breast cancer. Not only that but the support has grown tremendously. This campaign shows how design can create a social change in support of something that needs attention. I think another wonderful aspect to the campaign is that it sort of creates acceptance of the disease in a positive light rather than a negative. What I mean by this is that breast cancer isn’t really looked at as an evil killing disease; rather it is something that people fight and supporters support those who are fighting it. It brings togetherness under poor circumstances, while keeping the morale high and positive.

Design and Change

I want to see design being used for the greater good rather than for purposes of consumption. In “First Things First Revisited,” Poynor mentions the difference between “design as communication (giving people necessary information) and design as persuasion (trying to buy things.” The changes I wish to see are along these lines. To go further into detail, I want to see design used for bringing people together by showing variety, rather than singling out a certain brand, item, look, way of doing something, and what not. By showing diversity, people wouldn’t feel excluded or under par. Instead, design would be enabling a healthy community to form. People will be more in touch with reality, and through promoting individuality, a rich (not in terms of money but rather values) culture will flourish.

            Design can influence change through its power of being seen and heard by everyone. Design needs an audience—otherwise it serves no purpose. We have seen the immense power it has on people, especially through advertisements. Therefore, if design were to provoke a different message than it has been, then it will be able to influence change.

            A citizen designer is a designer who dedicates his or her work towards the good of the place he or she lives in. It is using design to make a community stronger in its relations within the members and their values. Poynor points out that commercial forces have polluted our communities by “demoralizing our sense of what full engagement” is. This simply means that the problem with today is that all this focus on consumption has destroyed our morals of interaction and the sense of community.

            I would say that magazines and TV commercials are the most effective mediums of design to all ages. TV especially influences all ages and groups since there are channels that is bound to spark the viewer’s interest.