Posted on October 1st, 2006 by Ryan Varga.
Categories: Ryan • Reading Reviews.
Muscular Design
In retrospect, I think this article really sets the tone for the rest of the readings. It gets straight to the point by dissolving the common misconceptions about design as well as the role of the designer. Although design has historically been associated with the back-end stages of development; styling, branding, advertising, etc. Designers have had the task recycling the trash form the disposal of reaction to the necessity of the manufacturing of persuasion and desire. This necessity arises since the products we are generally sold are things we don’t need.
Laurel also establishes what I think can be considered the thesis of the volume. That the emergent paradigm in design has resulted in an inversion of the development process; placing design - a design method based on research - at the front-end.
She also establishes the context within which designers must operate. It is a kind of paradox. While the velocity and abundance of information are exhibiting non-linear growth into an over-arching realm of transmedia. (A realm that again, where research requires knowledge drawn from on a multi-disciplinary pool of resources.) Yet the source of this abundance of information is becoming centralized by an elite minority - the trans-national corporation.
The role of the designer is to use research to inform the development of design, enabling the product to speak for itself, allowing “branding and marketing to move toward honest communication and away form persuasion and desire”. Human-centered design encompasses a set of methods that allows a designer to break-free from the status-quo and be truly innovative.
The Design Cluster
Upon reading Serges Gagnon’s definition of design as “the cultural appropriation of technology”, a thought immediately came to mind. It has to do with New Media and what it is. So to ask the question, What is New Media? Is to ask another; how does information propagate in a age a mechanical reproduction? More precisely perhaps - as the attempt to understand how information is propagated in an age of technological/virtual re-production. Anyway…back to the article.
For Lunenfeld, design research is “a method of investigation that sides with finding out rather than finding the already known”. Design research is a method that allows the designer to escape from safe solutions that “always work”. This is the only way innovation can thrive. When you free yourself from the confines of the status-quo, you are able to act like a chameleon, as Lunenfeld suggests. I think the term “renaissance man/woman” is more fitting. A successful designer must have knowledge of multiple disciplines, as different clients will all require a re-working of perspective.This re-thinking is necessary, as POV and perception go hand in hand, establishing the proper POV will allow for the proper contextual analysis of an organizations development strategy, for example. Design research affords the designer with the tools the merge synchronistically with the “’moment’ defined by pluralism and enlivened by serendipity. This goes had in hand with the way I work; I try an immerse myself in the process of creation rather than pre-determine what I think I want to create and end up recycling old solutions.
Another interesting idea is the subjectivity of design as opposed to the objectivity of the scientific method. Design solutions are heavily dependent on local sociological and cultural context thats define how the public may interact/perceive a given design solution - Koolhaas’ “the global YES” for example. A “Renaissance” attitude can allow a designer to hone their sensitivity to social contexts as well as deepen the pool of resources at their disposal. A multi-discipline awareness - discussed by Nissani - allows a designer to see relationships between variables that are able to cross-cut heretical/narrative structures with have commonly defined our interaction with information.
This article reinforces and builds upon many of the sentiments expressed in the article by Lisa Grocott. Rhea rejects the idea that a predictable process with the intention of innovation is untenable. The fact the business community uses the term “fuzzy front end” to describe the corporate strategy of development reveals that conglomerate perceive the process of creation as nebulous and random. Such an understanding asses any real innovation as a “high risk” enterprise; this is not surprising considering the circumstances. The tools of Design Research however, allow designer to actively drive and organizations innovations by designing a research based methodology to define the creative/innovative process.
This method of research is designed for discovery rather than tracking tracking existing conditions and assumptions. By being pro-active, rather than simply reacting like automatons can lead to truly innovative ideas. For example, many traditional sources of inspiration for corporations have been streamline production - maximizing efficiency in hopes of attaining economies of scale to maximize profit. Consequently, technology has been a common source on inspiration, thus ideas are generated in response to technology.
Thinking must diverge at the outset and begin with market based research assessed in such a way as to promote a holistic impression of the business and thus hypothesize about where potentials may exist. Divergent thinking promotes discovery through observation, the establishment of a POV - a way of communicating the context, and the identification of opportunities. Once this foundation has been established, the process can begin to converge upon a final framework that will establish the eventual development of a working prototype.
Bringing Clarity to the “Fuzzy Front End”
This article reinforces and builds upon many of the sentiments expressed in the article by Lisa Grocott. Rhea rejects the idea that a predictable process with the intention of innovation is untenable. The fact the business community uses the term “fuzzy front end” to describe the corporate strategy of development reveals that conglomerate perceive the process of creation as nebulous and random. Such an understanding asses any real innovation as a “high risk” enterprise; this is not surprising considering the circumstances. The tools of Design Research however, allow designer to actively drive and organizations innovations by designing a research based methodology to define the creative/innovative process.
This method of research is designed for discovery rather than tracking tracking existing conditions and assumptions. By being pro-active, rather than simply reacting like automatons can lead to truly innovative ideas. For example, many traditional sources of inspiration for corporations have been streamline production - maximizing efficiency in hopes of attaining economies of scale to maximize profit. Consequently, technology has been a common source on inspiration, thus ideas are generated in response to technology.
Thinking must diverge at the outset and begin with market based research assessed in such a way as to promote a holistic impression of the business and thus hypothesize about where potentials may exist. Divergent thinking promotes discovery through observation, the establishment of a POV - a way of communicating the context, and the identification of opportunities. Once this foundation has been established, the process can begin to converge upon a final framework that will establish the eventual development of a working prototype.
Speculation, Serendipity and Studio Anybody
As a designer, the process itself is of primary importance. I have always felt a sense of detachment form my work. Whenever I brainstorm, I always begin by falling into a state of mind that can allow for the free-flow of information and ideas. I strive to allow my work to create itself.
“…the sense of being which in calm hours arises, we know not how, in the soul, is not diverse from things, from space, from light, from time, from man, but one with them and proceeds obviously from the same source…. Here is the fountain of action and of thought…. We lie in the lap of immense intelligence.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson