Wednesday, April 11, 2012

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.

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

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.