Category archives: Design-philo

mastery of a process

There is one thing to be said about the Japanese culture of design, code, etc etc…. “Kaizen” (kigh – zane) – it is generally interpret as striving for perfection. This process of striving for perfection, or continuous improvement and achieving a level of fine art to the process is the whole philosophy of Kaizen.

just like the video below is describing two symbolic acts that sums this Japanese philosophy. It is important to understand that the modern western way of perfection is no longer what we assume as “perfection”. Americans consider an office job or high paying salary as a form of perfection, but what is ‘it’ that is ‘perfection’ – business deals, lawyering, accountant, broker?????

And this bothers me as a whole. We -western minds- would consider the two videos as an expression of a culture – the Japanese way.Except growing up in an Amish community near by, they had this mental too. All the immigrants that came to America and starting a trade in new york (the garment/fashion industry – which is described in the third video) they all took pride in their skills.

Even in the writings of Malcolm Gladwells’ book Outlier – he researched about this perfection or ‘great mind’ having to do ten years or in his words 10,000 hours to be come a talent or gifted in that skill, mind-capabilities, etc. Even software programmers need thousands of hours to get to the point of understanding the material they are working – a form of a mastery.

These videos represent a uni-skill or process to one specific need. One skill to perfection, but today’s 21st cent we are all about collecting multiple skills. Are we even good at these skills? Does a designer needs to be a business man, a politician, a conspirator, a non-profiter, a service diplomat, a fortune teller, a sales man, an engineer, an artist, a philosopher, a writer, a carpenter, a mathematician - a 21st renaissance man???

Should designers take pride that they, as i call myself, a dabbler of skills???? In this economy i need this ‘dabbli-ation’ to survive, but on the flip side, i feel i am not contributing myself an identity towards one perfect skill. A skill that people will admire and to call for that tiny specific problem. Which is the dynamic stress of today, citizens are not aware about their needs or knowing when to call.

It is also the problem to understand  how much will that need of this perfect skill come into existence. This explains why we can still see the “simpler” trades being continue into the art of perfection – ironing, shoe shining, tailoring – these are needs that will never change throughout the decades of technology immersion and such. Except everyone DOES know a person will do the job better than technology – only we will admit that technology provides an “as-good” for a cheaper price.

Lessons from a Tailor. Directed by Galen Summer from Ed David on Vimeo.

is stupid the next innovation?

I don’t know. personally I really think to be innovative is to being stupid at times. Not trying to think but letting it happen and observe the errors of your actions. Planning can get you so far. Good planning requires the data you have collected from past projects and industry measures. Innovation is not about planning. To be innovative is to being watchful of what you are doing and why you are doing it. SO in theory, smart people should watch the stupid people based from the advertisement of diesel’s Just be stupid campaign.

Over all i love it, but also it has truth to what we are experiencing today in this world. Getting the top grades or into the top school does not cut it anymore. Getting a degree in one area does not mean you are working at a job relating to your degree. I see many countless designers not getting the “stereotypical” design jobs. Does it mean they are still “designers”. No. it means that the world is changing and half the industry does not know what to do.

oh well.

will china have a sense of design?

I think it is in everyone’s debate about product style and form language that is “chinese”. It took great time for the japanese to develop their distinctive style. And you can say that the Koreans are creating their own style. I will have an opinion that Korean style is still developing and not as distinctive as the japanese.

As for Chinese, it is a very long road for them. Below i copy/paste from the designboom.com and it is this type of politics that informs me that China will not have their cutting edge style anytime soon. For design to bloom, so must the artist communities.

Contemporary Artist are very organic and very creative. Design gets inspired from their “older” brother, the fine art. Fine Art is visual way to interpret the world. For artists in china and especially in beijing being destroyed by the government will not help designers to feel they are safe and welcome for innovative ideas.

I think it is wrong to say that china’s design style is coming along. I think hong kong and shanghai has design styles but those are “cities” not the over all country. There is a new york city style against a chicago style against Atlanta style, but the USA still overall has an American design style.

Personally me, when will china expect their own deep old culture and modernize it to their interpretation? When will they remove data from their business and embrace human emotions/intuition into their organizations? When will they stop “COPYING” every other products, cultures, styles, and think about the Chinese needs/interest/culture?

———–


from left, liu wei, liu yi, wu yuren, zhang jun and sun yuan are among the artists protesting the demolition of their homes and studios
in the northern part of beijing.

image © du bin

earlier this week nearly two dozen artists protested through china’s capital after forced
demolitions of their homes and studios in beijing’s artists’ villages gallery, police forces
intervened with swinging iron rods preventing the group to reach tiananmen square.


first hall, the artists’ villages gallery

the artists’ villages gallery is one of the largest art spaces in beijing with at more than
4,000 square meters. located in songzhuang in the capital’s eastern suburbs, it houses
more than 2000 contemporary chinese artists residents consisting of painters, sculptors,
calligraphers and photographers.


‘big pharmacy’, mixed media installation, september 2003
wuyuren, a photographer and installation artist was one of many attacked for protesting.

wy yu ren, a photographer and installation artist was one of many attacked by masked men
for protesting.


‘big pharmacy’, mixed media installation, september 2003


‘kui hua zi’ by ai weiwei, porcelain 1000kg

chinese contemporary artist ai weiwei sent out twitter messages to document the march
towards tiananmen square. police intervened within 500 yards of his march.


’17 stools from the quing dynasty (1644-1911)’, 167cm x 180cm x 157cm by ai weiwei

residence artists are aggrieved by the situation as they were lured to the villages with
long term lease, in some cases for 20 years. for many, they have invested their life
saving in renovations and are concerned by the bullying tactics from developers.

the conflict over the future of beijing’s artist village is a direct result of increasing real
estate values and issues over land expropriation. this has prompted about suicides amongst
many of those faced with eviction followed by extensive media coverage. only now has
the government began considering the modification of the nation’s urban redevelopment
regulation.

however, for the protesters who have publicly vocalized their stance on the ongoing issue,
it is unclear whether their actions will alter the fate of the development threatening
the artists’ villages. read more here

chinese artists protest.

Rules we must follow for technology design

one thing i regret as a child is not reading arthur C. Clark. (I think it was because i rebel against everyone in my family as a child… since both my brothers have read them, why must I?)

Anyway, this was a unique point by him, and really is making want to read is books to see the reflection of technology he was envisioning and what we have developed today. It is indeed scary that he is on the same path of metaphors and ideas that we are performing today.

I personally feel we must believe in these rules or at least understand them in their context. Reason is, because I personally feel there are no rules in the world of technology innovations look at the segway! It does not fit a purpose to market today, but I feel it is an invention to do for future inventions, which is called evolution….

This is something i think most engineers and designers DON’T get, we have to produce products so it evolves into key critical ideas that changes society. for a second just stop thinking about the project you are working on as the end all be all solutions, because if we actually did make products that are SO PERFECT, then we no longer have jobs! we become unemployed.

I will agree you have to give you best on the project. Or otherwise we did not learn anything about that project for future project’s success rates.

______________________

 

Arthur C. Clarke, the science fiction writer, identified what he called the “three laws of prediction,” reflecting an optimistic view of ingenuity:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong;

2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture past them into the impossible; and

3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Clarke was an exception to the rule that predicting future technology is hard. In Wireless World magazine in 1945, he proposed using a set of satellites in geostationary orbit to form a global communications network.

 

In “The View from Serendip,” published in 1977, Clarke predicted the Internet: “Immediate access in the home via simple computer-type keyboards, and TV displays, to all the world’s great libraries . . . And items needed for permanent reference could be printed off as soon as located on a copying machine—or filed magnetically in the home storage system.”

In the same book, he also forecast email and online news: “Facsimile services whereby letters, printed matter, etc. can be reproduced instantly. The physical delivery of mail and newspapers will thus be largely replaced by the orbital post office, and the orbital newspaper . . .”

 

 

via Gordon Crovitz: Technology Predictions Are Mostly Bunk – WSJ.com.

business card concept

i love the humor.

via Megan Cummins Works » Branding.

3 kinds of innovation

Okay below is just one fraction of what is being described in the posting from a blog. I am a designer that cares for the “process”, it does not have to be design driven, user driven, or technology driven. I personally feel people need to develop an understanding that everyone does process work but it is that spirit of committment to make the process real is what’s important. I strongly encourage others to read the posting (link is below), but if not just reallize these three kinds of innovation from the book – Roberto Verganti’s Design-Driven Innovation

The Three Kinds of Innovation via Verganti

1. Technology Push (technology-based, instrumental adjustments, Moore’s Law, etc.) Often focused on searching for new markets for a technology without fulling appreciating the meanings of the new stuff.

“The effect is that when looking for potential applications, companies focus on technological substitutions: they use a new technology to supplant an old one, thus reinforcing the existing meaning. And if the technology cannot support the existing meaning, companies simply disregard it. Indeed, Microsoft and Sony did not search for how to apply MEMS because it was useless to passive players who use only thumbs. Nintendo invested in three-dimensional accelerometers because it wanted to overturn meaning.”
[p. 65-66]

2. Market pull User-centered perspectives yield an appreciation of what things mean to “users”. Improvements (”incremental change”) comes about by analysis of users’ needs. You pull the world forward, up a step, by understanding what your customers are doing.

A company looking for radical innovation of meaning does not get too close to users, because the meaning users give to things is bounded by the existing sociocultural regime. Instead, when investing in radical innovation of meaning, companies..take a step back and investigate the evolution of society, economy, culture, art, science, and technology.

This is not to say that they analyze trends: those are visible because they are already happening. These companies instead search for new possibilities that are consistent with the evolution of sociocultural phenomena but that are not there until a company transforms them into products and proposes them to people. They look for the seeds that they can cultivate into blossoms. They have a superior ability to understand, create and influence new product meanings.

This does not mean that they do not care about people’s needs. Rather, they carefully investigate how people give meaning to things. First..the company looks at people, not users. When a company gets very close to a user, it sees him changing a lightbulb and loses the cognitive and sociocultural context — the fact that he has children, a job, and, most of all, aspirations and dreams.
Second, the company looks at people within a changing sociocultural context. To understand possible new meanings, the company steps back and looks at the big picture to see what people could love in a yet-to-exist scenario and how they might receive new proposals.

3. Design driven innovation – creates new meanings. Rather than looking at what a new or improved technology can do, or looking at existing user needs, create new meanings or “proposals” through design. Companies propose to people “break-through visions” — things out of the realm of the ordinary.

We call the radical innovation of meanings design-driven innovation, or design push, because it is propelled by a firm’s vision about possible breakthrough meanings and product languages that people could love (retrospectively, people often seem to have been simply waiting for them). Design-driven innovation resembles the process of technology push more than that of market pull.

“Design driven innovation” is what Verganti is pitching as the route to distinction, differentiation, opportunity, etc. It is quite different from user-centered innovation, in his estimation. Instead of “..closely looking with a magnifying lens at how a person cuts cheese, [ask] ‘What meanings could family members search for when they are home and are going to have dinner?’ ”

Design-driven innovation steps back from users and looks at a different perspective — at the assemblage of possible interconnected meanings, exploring contexts that may be evolving and changing both “socioculturally” and “technically.” It is not about following trends, but exploring alternative scenarios and materializing designed contexts that are proposals to users — points of entry to quite new experiences, with new meanings, perhaps incompletely explored in the context of commercial activities. Design-driven innovation moves beyond the routine and quotidian into a new network of meanings. The meaning of things can be radically innovate just as technologies can.

via Near Future Laboratory » Blog Archive » Innovation and Design.

Movies reflects Design meaning

there are times the movies hit it just right to make a point about why we design. Though, movies likes to make the normal extreme for the entertainment purposes.

but the link below is another designer making a concern point about why we need to make the experience or product as real and true to the picture or feel.

via The importance of setting accurate expectations- 90 Percent of Everything.

design verse ghetto

i just have to blog this, cause i come from the land of  “cheap” fixer upper, so this is a classic for me.

fukasawa4.jpg

Ariel Schlesinger put together a guide on how to fabricate a cheap, homemade version of the wall-mounted CD player Nato Fukasawa designed for Muji.

via HOWTO Make A Cheap Version of Muji’s CD Player | Boing Boing Gadgets.

Uber-Over thinking

Yeah i tend to overthink and yeah i tend to uber think. below is what happens by another person’s opinion when you overthink:

Here are some reasons why I believe “overthinking” is the enemy:

1. Complicates projects

2. Can waste valuable time

3. It will shut you down

4. It makes it more complicated than it really is

5. When you overthink, you usually think yourself right out of the answer

6. With overthinking, comes less action

7. It can equal fear of failure

For myself, i have a tendency to UBER think. That is purposely overthinking the problem to forecast new potential problems and then back track myself to its simplest form/usablity/definition — cutting and editing the complexity throughout the process.

It is a way for a creativity mindset to push the boundaries and say to oneself why i remove certain elements of the project but left other elements intact for meaningful value. (elements could also be imply as the “features” to the product/service/interface of the design.) I tend to speak/write abstractly because it is not just about design but also when i cook, build, fix, drive, etc – other actions within my life.

yeah, i need to think more about UBER think and what it means for me,  basically i just thought of the term right now when reading this blog of overthinking…..

via Overthinking Is The Enemy | Josh Cagwin | Cagwin Design | Graphic Design + Web Design + Art Direction.

The Wanderer wandering

I very much like this take about understanding how the consumer “wanders” through information in search of what they are or are not looking for.

full article is at the link below:

The second element of an experience is that it is driven by content. People see content and experiences, in the digital space at least, as duplicative. Not true, says Wikipedia, the Walter Cronkite of the Web 3.0 generation. Content is defined as “….information or experiences that may provide value for an end user….delivered via any medium.” To make something experiential, it must be driven by content to create Digital Visibility. Digital visibility is created three different ways, two of which still allow some semblance of control.

1. Existing Content (already created so control over where it goes)

2. Digital Original Content (created specifically by brands so some control)

3. User Generated Content (no control)

Distributing this content allows us to show value to the consumer through an experience. The goal of any experience is to place it in the right place at the right time in front of the right person. There are three markers that allow us to do that represented here:

02_distributed

via Meet Your New Consumer… The Wanderer at Experience Matters.