May 2015 – Art / Design

Design Systems Thinking Post 4

While researching for the capstone project I have been working on for the past quarter, I found many non-profits which work with people who have anxiety disorder, or high stress levels. However, these non-profits are focused on categorizing stress-like disorders, rather than people who may not necessarily be diagnosed with anything, but instead could use help and reminders in their daily lives to overcome stress. I have learned through many articles and design-thinking reading in general though, that finding different purposes to fit specific needs is nothing to stray away from even if it may seem more abstract in the beginning stages. Through interviews, research, and cycles of several iterations consisting of ideas to help put this concept in the most beneficial context, you are able to find solutions you never thought would work so well.

There is a huge part of the design community that is passionate social change, and this in itself gives us as designers the opportunity to take these thoughts we have and share them with others who have the same desire to use visual (or audible or tactile) designs to change and shape people in a positive direction. The book I created for this project includes four sections (mind, move, food, and friends), which were decided upon after conducting interviews about what helps those who are stressed. This final product though, could have been pushed and changed and been even better with a team of other creative minds. People like those at desigNYC or DIY which both combine design and helping others, ideas which cater towards the greater good of people and communities, are places where helping others through creativity happens everyday. “desigNYC is a nonprofit 501©(3) that aims to improve the lives of New Yorkers through the power of design by connecting designers with nonprofits serving the public good, and then revealing the impact of those partnerships through great storytelling.” DIY consists of a toolkit which is designed “for development practitioners to invent, adopt or adapt ideas that can deliver best results.”

http://diytoolkit.org

http://www.aiga.org/designforgood-get-involved/

http://www.designyc.org

Fluxus – Turin

In the 1960’s and 70’s when artists were taking a radical turn in Modern Art, the Italian art critic Germano Celant coined the term Arte-Povera, meaning quite literally “poor art”. This term was not necessarily related to the money spent creating the artwork however, but moreover the work of anti-materialists that fell into this category (according to Celant). Common artists who demonstrated Arte Povera included Giovanni Anselmo, Luciano Fabro, Giuseppe Penone, along with several others. They “found vitality as well as metaphysical import in every kind of common, even perishable material…and chose to present rather than represent it” (Hunter, Jacobus, Wheeler, Modern Art). While in italy, the museum I visited most often was the GAM (Gallery of Modern and Contemporary art in Turin). One exhibit I remember my professor talking about extensively while on a tour, (probably because it was very close to her, being that it took place in the museum 45 years earlier), was an exhibition called “Fluxus alla Gam” curated by Maria Teresa Roberto. “Fluxus” was a type of “anti-art” of the time, which usually combined several different mediums into one piece. This work was a one time installment which took place on April 26, 1967 and resulted in a mark on a long roll of paper created by a man being drug on his head to create it. The other installation was when he tied himself with a bunch of different strings attached to different parts of the room, and had people come and observe. These events were part of a three day event “Concert Fluxus art total”,which included actions and concerts of music. The idea of this kind of “anti-art” was to be in the instant of the event and for that reason, this piece is much more about the moment in time in which this event happened, and less about the outcome of the piece after the fact. However, these artifacts become something interesting in themselves, and something we as viewers are able to hold onto and try to understand though we may never have the full experience of being there at the happening. “The performative dimension thus entered for the first time in the museum, according to the principles of a Fluxus art practice widespread, collective, aimed at denying the principles of originality and authorship.”

This piece and Fluxus, Anti-art, and Arte-Povera in general were crucial movements in defining what art is. This was the beginning of the transition from modern to contemporary art, for the re-definition of what art is, is an ongoing question even today.

Performative roll of paper painting in the Fluxus alla GAM at GAM Torino. Photo by Hailey Thomson

Sources:

Hunter, Sam, and John M. Jacobus. Modern Art: Painting, Sculpture, Architecture. 2nd ed. New York: H.N. Abrams, 1985. Print.

http://www.gamtorino.it/surprise/index.php?id=fluxus-alla-gam-26-aprile-1967

Design Systems Thinking Post 3

Though there have been several articles I have read this quarter that are formed around design research, the proposal written by Meredith Davis, the Director of Graduate Programs in Graphic Design at NC State University, talks about the research process as it relates to the design education system, rather than just the overall research system. I have seen many different circle-like plans and how-to’s that are formed around explaining what to do when approaching the research process before or during making design decisions. However, the thought training that is needed in order to execute these sort of processes is not always just picked up in the work force, nor is it directly taught alongside learning the fundamentals of graphic design while in school. The importance of being able to configure how exactly your audience is going to use a final design, and what benefits the look or content can do on it’s own are critical when approaching the design world. Davis makes a strong and interesting point when she explains the difference between research “focuse[d] on the subject matter of their design” compared to “the characteristics of users or context.” This hit home not because of the way my professors have guided my learning in design school, but because of the way I have thought of design research as a tool to look at the background of my subject instead of the use of the product at hand. Whether it be the instinct my fellow classmates and I have about education or not, this research distinction between background and use is something that should be clarified in order to move forward with more strategic and beneficial designs. The final outcome of graphic look will continue to be irrelevant unless the user and purpose is taken into consideration and helps to fully shape the way the project is formed. The easiest way I could picture this difference is as it relates to a Homelessness project my classmates and I worked on last quarter in our information design class. We spent weeks gathering background information, statistics, interviews, etc. but our final output was always going to be the same: two posters, and a motion graphic video. Could some other end product been more successful? The research testing for what the outcome would be could have taken just as long if not longer than the background research. But the end product or design as far as how helpful it could be in making a difference in the community, could have been worth that extra testing.

Davis, Meredith. “Building a Culture of Design Research.” SEGD (2012). SEGD. SEGD Academic Summit. Web. 1 Jan. 2015. <https://segd.org/building-culture-design-research-0>.

Research_book_presentation_v1