First Presentation

This presentation was given on June 9th to Anne Burdick.

[View with PicLens]

12►

designer’s practice: bird’s eye view

Read the rest of this entry »

documentation-analysis-adaptation

OBSERVATION – DOCUMENTATION – ANALYSIS – REFLECTION-EVALUATION - ADAPTATION

  Read the rest of this entry »

Meaning of Creative Process

We also have discussed about the system of designing process. It is begins with a designer’s hand and tools then assembled with contents and concluded as a format as a final outcome. Contents are divided into two groups. Some contents such as ink, code, sound, light, etc. are raw and unrefined resources. (I would rather use term resources rather than materials because designers utilize non-material resources such as information or light to shape their ideas). Texts, video or audio are pre-formed contents. The outcome of design process is format. The designer’s idea is finally embodied as format, which can be expressed through texture, shape, temporality, behavior and so on. Some designers even create contents for themselves; In this case the outcome will have more distinctive characteristics comparing to others.

Personally, the most interesting topic from the last discussion was about the meaning of creative process. I think most designers not only design their outcome but also design their own creative process by facing their work. I’m definitely not a very creative person, but I often get inspired by my brainstorming sketches and storyboards that I created during my creative process; they suggest alternatives and even answers. The history of creative process of an artist is critical based on whether the outcome turns out good or bad. Most of all creative works are produced through at least several months of enduring period of trial and error. During that period, each designer cumulates his or her own experience of history of making process; it contains precious information of histories built through the beginning to the end of their creative process. For example, when we see a photo of Ray Eams work desk, we clearly notice that there is some kind of “organized mass” is developed in that photo. It might looks disorganized at a first glance, however those numerous piles of files, photos and magazine clippings are systematically organized by the designer who is sitting in front of that desk, brain storming and crafting for several hours almost everyday. This systemized chaos contains and remembers a history of the designer’s creative process because they were built and developed by the designer from the beginning when she started to work at that particular desk and it is naturally organized according to her working habits and routines through several years. Yet, later on it is providing collected information to the designer whenever she need. The interaction between artists and the revaluation of their creative process keeps nourishing the overall process of making, because those records of history can be utilized for the future projects as a guideline or inspiration.

Read the rest of this entry »

Phil’s first refactoring of brainstorming

Overview

We covered a lot of ground in the first couple days, and I think it sets the stage well for our research. It seems to me that we’re covering three main areas.

1. defining how designers work and what parts of that we’re interested in.
2. defining our approach to building a taxonomy
3. identifying potential directions for our prototypes

Read the rest of this entry »

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?

Human Affordance and Ideation

We have come, again, to the need to decide the extend by which our taxonomy will include human affordances or be limited to the affordances of objects and tools.

Our outlined a flow chart “Hand>Tool>Content>Format” as a process to generate meaning raises a question: Are we assuming the human element in creating this meaning or are we overlooking it? The answer to this question leads to another important decision, that is to what extent to we immerse ourselves in the psychology of the human affordance and the complications associated with it.

Determining our interest in human affordance is particularly important as we explore the making of ideas. Mainly because there is so much variability in the act of making ideas. For example, there is at least two types of idea making: Ideas which lead to concept and ideas which assist in production. These two actions alone beg for two separate research agendas. Additionally, there are affordances that have a great impact on ideation and must be considered when developing tools and spaces for idea making. For example, I believe the affordance of time has the greatest influence on the resulting idea.

I have included a simple diagram depicting some of these thoughts: