Bruce Mau's incomplete list of manifestos was definitely far from what I was expecting. Many of his points seemed to be quite contradictory: Take field trips, avoid fields. Of course the meaning of field was completely different in these two cases, but there were other instances where I found myself wondering how this advice should really be taken. Some of the points seemed to be good advice for anyone at any time. But then every once in a while there would be a point like, "Don't enter competitions." I still don't think I really understand why Mau insists that they are simply "Not good for you." Is it that he doesn't trust unknown judges to decide what is best? Or possibly that he doesn't care for a best to be chosen? Whatever, I think they're probably alright.
Anyway, I ended up deciding to pick the mantra: Make Mistakes Faster. I think that Mau's idea (even though he admits to borrowing the idea from Andy Grove), is that the quicker you make mistakes, the quicker you filter out possible solutions, and the quicker you arrive at a feasible solution. I would agree with this. The problem is that making mistakes takes as much time as making progress. Mau would argue that mistakes are progress. And I would agree. But putting exhilarating effort into making choices I expect to result in mistakes seems like a waste of time. When I say that for this week I will MAKE MISTAKES FASTER, I mean that I will try possible solutions more vigorously. However, maybe it wouldn't hurt to try some things that I think are inherently bad.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Sagmiester, Abrams, and McCloud (journal 3)
I don't really know where to start with this one. Sagmeister, Abrams, and McCloud all touched on such different topics. Sagmeister weighed the moral value of being a designer, Abrams explained the value of the unknown, and McCloud gave an extremely dense lecture on the science of comics and what their future entails. At first thought, there really isn't much these three have in common. One is a graphic designer renown for creating album art, another a director/producer, and the third, a comic book artist. However, they are all extremely successful at what they do, and they all do some sort of art. So they must all be good creative thinkers. McCloud said that the key is to learn from everyone, follow no one, look for patterns, and work like hell. Sounds pretty right on from what I know. The others don't provide such a simply put strategy, but I would think that they both follow some sort of similar model, even if only subconsciously.
Well, hell... I think I hit a rut. I guess I'll just give my tow cents on Sagmeister. Although I really enjoyed the Abrams video the most of the three.
I have gone through phases when I would become obsessed with answering ethical questions, like those addressed in Sagmeister's article. What SHOULD I do as a designer, what CAN I do as a designer, what do I WANT to do as a designer... etc. Overall this was very frustrating as I'm sure it is for anyone. Sometimes, I would ask myself things like what are the biggest problems in the world? Or, what will be the largest threat to our existence? Other times I would feel a little more light hearted and think, what will happen to the film industry? Or, how could I entertain people most effectively? What I began to realize was that the answers to these rather daunting questions involved a lot more than good design. Thus, I stopped looking at myself as a designer, and started looking at myself as a communicator. That way, when I approach a project, my main goal is to solve the problem, not make a design. I don't know how much I have cared about being ethical recently. I think that for now I'm just trying to be better. That way, when I'm better I can be ethical more efficiently.
Well, hell... I think I hit a rut. I guess I'll just give my tow cents on Sagmeister. Although I really enjoyed the Abrams video the most of the three.
I have gone through phases when I would become obsessed with answering ethical questions, like those addressed in Sagmeister's article. What SHOULD I do as a designer, what CAN I do as a designer, what do I WANT to do as a designer... etc. Overall this was very frustrating as I'm sure it is for anyone. Sometimes, I would ask myself things like what are the biggest problems in the world? Or, what will be the largest threat to our existence? Other times I would feel a little more light hearted and think, what will happen to the film industry? Or, how could I entertain people most effectively? What I began to realize was that the answers to these rather daunting questions involved a lot more than good design. Thus, I stopped looking at myself as a designer, and started looking at myself as a communicator. That way, when I approach a project, my main goal is to solve the problem, not make a design. I don't know how much I have cared about being ethical recently. I think that for now I'm just trying to be better. That way, when I'm better I can be ethical more efficiently.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
What is good Design? (journal entry 2)
O.K. so here are the summaries...
In "Ten Principals of Good Design," Dieter Rams lists and defines what he thinks is good design. In "3 Ways Good Design Makes You Happy," Don Norman explains 3 ways that design can make you happy (only its more like 4, because his slide show brings up 4 headings, but maybe they thought 4 was too large of a number for people to grasp, or maybe I missed something, whatever).
Oh, and the question for Don: "Do you think that one of the three (or four) ways design can make you happy takes president over the other?
But really, What is good design? I have been putting nearly 100% of my academic efforts to design related things for the past two years now, and I still don't really know what good design is. I am more confident now to voice an opinion about something that I think is bad design, but I still cant really answer that question. I try to go to all the Hallmark lectures, and a good number of those speakers have made statements about what they think is good design and no two are exactly alike, but they all sound good when I hear said, as part of a greater lecture. It seems to me that every designer out there has their own definition of what makes design good. More interestingly, they all try and define good design by breaking it into some sort of category. For example, "Ten Principals of Good Design" and "3 Ways Good Design Makes You Happy." That is weird. Its not like every scientist stresses over which category of stuff they can lump together to define science. That would be so painful! "Hmmm, well I think, that good science should be innovative, useful, understandable, unobtrusive, honest, long-lasting, down to the last detail, and worded as simply as possible." HOLY SHIT! Those are 9 of the 10 things good design is according to Rams! The only one not in the group: aesthetic. The funny thing is that all of those things are true of good science. Having an aesthetic quality is the only thing that separates the two, according to Rams. That's probably why Norman has recently (recent to 2003 that is) decided to devote his life to exploring what can be done with changing around aesthetics (it can make you happy!).
So is design science? No, science is not aesthetic. But is that the only difference? If it is, then why aren't these profound lists put to some sort of scientific or psychological test and organized so that we designers don't have to keep worrying about when its good to make something stand out. Or when its more important to make something so that people will buy it or make something so that people will enjoy the feel of it. Or so that we can just know if a good book cover is one that it captures the essence of the book with out making obvious references to focal points in the plot or if someone can see it from a mile away. Is aesthetics the only thing getting in the way? I think maybe. When you add aesthetics to the equation, nothing is fact anymore. But then again, it could be because we as designers expect different things from designs we are critiquing. For example, the first day of class, I told my small group that I thought "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" cover was ugly. Then Lauren said that it was voted one of the best of the year by Print magazine. They had chosen it because it was highly recognizable. Recognizably wasn't even in my criteria when I was evaluating the covers success, but I couldn't deny that book covers in general may profit from being recognizable.
Overall, I think that one thing that every designer agrees on is that design must work. As far as I am concerned, it can end there. good design works. That's it. Everything else is subject to opinion and once that happens nobody can really be right. The challenge though, I think, is evaluating the ways that design should work and which ways are more important than another.
That's my rant. No disrespect to either Rams or Norman intended. I also have my categories of words that I pompously think have relevance to each other.
In "Ten Principals of Good Design," Dieter Rams lists and defines what he thinks is good design. In "3 Ways Good Design Makes You Happy," Don Norman explains 3 ways that design can make you happy (only its more like 4, because his slide show brings up 4 headings, but maybe they thought 4 was too large of a number for people to grasp, or maybe I missed something, whatever).
Oh, and the question for Don: "Do you think that one of the three (or four) ways design can make you happy takes president over the other?
But really, What is good design? I have been putting nearly 100% of my academic efforts to design related things for the past two years now, and I still don't really know what good design is. I am more confident now to voice an opinion about something that I think is bad design, but I still cant really answer that question. I try to go to all the Hallmark lectures, and a good number of those speakers have made statements about what they think is good design and no two are exactly alike, but they all sound good when I hear said, as part of a greater lecture. It seems to me that every designer out there has their own definition of what makes design good. More interestingly, they all try and define good design by breaking it into some sort of category. For example, "Ten Principals of Good Design" and "3 Ways Good Design Makes You Happy." That is weird. Its not like every scientist stresses over which category of stuff they can lump together to define science. That would be so painful! "Hmmm, well I think, that good science should be innovative, useful, understandable, unobtrusive, honest, long-lasting, down to the last detail, and worded as simply as possible." HOLY SHIT! Those are 9 of the 10 things good design is according to Rams! The only one not in the group: aesthetic. The funny thing is that all of those things are true of good science. Having an aesthetic quality is the only thing that separates the two, according to Rams. That's probably why Norman has recently (recent to 2003 that is) decided to devote his life to exploring what can be done with changing around aesthetics (it can make you happy!).
So is design science? No, science is not aesthetic. But is that the only difference? If it is, then why aren't these profound lists put to some sort of scientific or psychological test and organized so that we designers don't have to keep worrying about when its good to make something stand out. Or when its more important to make something so that people will buy it or make something so that people will enjoy the feel of it. Or so that we can just know if a good book cover is one that it captures the essence of the book with out making obvious references to focal points in the plot or if someone can see it from a mile away. Is aesthetics the only thing getting in the way? I think maybe. When you add aesthetics to the equation, nothing is fact anymore. But then again, it could be because we as designers expect different things from designs we are critiquing. For example, the first day of class, I told my small group that I thought "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" cover was ugly. Then Lauren said that it was voted one of the best of the year by Print magazine. They had chosen it because it was highly recognizable. Recognizably wasn't even in my criteria when I was evaluating the covers success, but I couldn't deny that book covers in general may profit from being recognizable.
Overall, I think that one thing that every designer agrees on is that design must work. As far as I am concerned, it can end there. good design works. That's it. Everything else is subject to opinion and once that happens nobody can really be right. The challenge though, I think, is evaluating the ways that design should work and which ways are more important than another.
That's my rant. No disrespect to either Rams or Norman intended. I also have my categories of words that I pompously think have relevance to each other.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Writing for Ideas (journal 1)
As mentioned in Writing For Visual Thinkers, I have been instructed to use various brainstorming techniques ever since grade school. In my earlier years, I went head strong into projects, with a shoot first, ask questions later attitude. Because of this, I felt a bit of cognitive dissonance when instructed to approach something by writing a word list or brainstorm for a bit. However, as I did them more and more, I started to realize what an awesome spring board for later ideas these various forms of writing could be. Over the years, I have taken certain aspects of these techniques that I have found helpful and have started to understand the circumstances when I should use one method over another or a combination.
Last summer, I began to keep a little black sketch pad where I would write random thoughts. As I got used to it, I started to use it for other things like sketches, and brainstorming. Now, it has become my number one item. I take notes in it, write concept maps and wordlists, brainstorm, bring it to important meetings, sketch ideas, and when I'm feeling really creative, I'll sometimes write a poem. It has essentially become an idea safe. I think that I'm a fairly forgetful person, so having a place where I can quickly jot down things so I can remind myself later is awesome. I'm not creepy about it; I've seen prestigious artsy kids whip out a pad and pencil at a party and write some profound drunken scribble down a few times. But thats weird. Even though I sometimes get the urge to write down booze induced thoughts, I think it looks too stupid to be worth it. So I try and remember until I get home to do it. Usually they suck anyway.
I thought the reading made an interesting point about free writing. Except for a few times in English classes, I've never tried to actually do that to generate new ideas. I don't know that I will try it. For now it seems that I have found a pretty good system for solving problems. Except for this one with a logo I'm working on.. but I think doing some more sketches will be a better solvent for that one.
ok thats all
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)