Brainstorming Take-away and Questions

My general take on where we are at so far.

Our culture has an emphasis on thinking through making, and yet, there still exists a strong distinction for designers between the ideation and production phases of the creative process. This distinction has come up repeatedly in our discussions, phrased as one that divides the manipulation of ideas from the manipulation of bits. More specifically, we all seem to think that although digital tools created for media production are not ideal, they are far more adequately developed than digital tools for the creation and manipulation of ideas. Which is to say, there is a lack of attention being paid to the role digital affordances can play in the process of creating, manipulating, and refining meaning within the context of a project. There is also a lack of recognition, within creative software, that the process of any given project, if properly coordinated, captured, tagged, and interfaced, can form it’s own body of meaningful content that can inform not only the project at hand, but future projects as well. And of course, there is potential to have that process based content be generated, exist, and be accessed and manipulated outside of the standard computer interfaces that we currently employ, and in ways which are more appropriate, more productive, and more meaningful throughout the creative process.

My questions:

1. What, really, is the distinction between ideation and production? To what extent is this distinction one that is born out of inadequacies in our literacies, tools and processes? (That is to say, if a perfect set of tools and processes were to exist, could we dissolve the distinction and simply talk of creation?)

2. What role can a taxonomy of affordance play as we tackle the issue outlined above, and what role can it play more generally in any design process?

3. In the “Hand>Tool>Content>Format” scheme that we created, where is the most fruitful area for the creation of a taxonomy of affordance? Also, if, as Phil suggested, one can design formats without the presence of explicit content, how might such an approach be a productive and unique alternative to the standard conceptions of communication design? What might be the pitfalls of such an approach?

4. If it makes sense to talk about affordances in terms of relationships, and if human affordances are of concern here, then is the goal of this project to strengthen the relationship of the designer to his projects?

5. As a media designer, concerned with meaning, what do I want to work with? Or perhaps, in light of the question 4, what kind of relationship do I want with my projects?