By looking for happiness, what does man seek after? He is seeking after his self, though he does not know it. ... The more one understands oneself, the more one finds that everything that one finds lacking in others is also lacking in oneself. Does a person become less by finding faults in oneself? No, he becomes greater, for he not only finds that the faults which are in others are also to be found in him, but that all merits of the others are also his own merits. With faults and merits he becomes more complete, he does not become less.
What a great treasure it is when a man has realized that in him are to be found all the merits and all the faults which exist in the world, and that he can cultivate all that he wishes to cultivate, and to cut away all that should be removed! It is like rooting out the weeds and sowing the seeds of flowers and fruits. One finds that all is in oneself, and that one can cultivate in oneself what he wishes. A world opens for the man who begins to look within himself, for it is not a little plot of ground that he has to cultivate, he has a world to make of himself and to make a world is sufficient occupation to live for. What more does one want? Many think that life is not interesting because they make nothing, but they do not realize that they have to make a world, that they are making a world, either ignorantly or wisely. If they make a world ignorantly then that world is their captivity, if they make a world wisely then that world is their paradise.
My sister just launched an incredible Kickstarter and I wanted to spread the word. For all of you who've launched a campaign you know the feeling on the first day. I urge you to take a look at this beautiful modern tarot deck, her and her friends have created, and if you like it please support and spread the word.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/756996328/the-fountain-tarot-a-contemporary-standard/backers
A few months ago I participated in an Iconathon with the Noun Project, Mother Jones, and GRACE Communications Foundation to come up with icons that represent various sustainable food and farming concepts. The icons are now live and a bunch of them are ones that alextodaro and I designed along with our teammates Tom Philpott (who writes about his experience here) and Emily Cozart of Mother Jones. Pretty cool :)
Design will not save the world, I realize that now, but I will never stop believing that people, using it well and for the right reason, can help lead the changes that will.
Weâre getting near the end of the semester, so most of the students launched their projects last week. In just one week, we went from 3 launched projects to 13!
The full range of projects is amazing, running the gamut from productivity tools to community interviews, fashion to books. Check out the full list of launched projects below!
Flight Deck by Aastha Bhargava, a deck of cards for aviation enthusiasts about all the instruments in a cockpit.
QNSMADE by Amy Wu, a website that celebrates the people and artisans of Queens.
A Memory Between Us by Dami You, a postcard set for travel companions. Featured as Kickstarterâs project of the day!
Taskit Notes by Effy Zhang, a sticky notepad for individuals or teams to track their time
Experience Journal by Hanna Yoon, a notebook for people who want to pay more attention to their surroundings.
Mount Thunder by Jeffrey Gochman and Trent Thompson, a high-quality purveyor of video game-inspired posters.
Game of Phones by Luke Stern and Sam Wander, a card game for smartphones and their users.
Makerâs Alphabet by Melody Quintana and Sneha Pai, an illustrated book about all the things you can make.
Archigrams by Michie Cao, a set of flashcards and posters that introduce famous buildings in a minimalist style.
The Upstanding Desk by Mikey Chen and Sam Carmichael, an adjustable converter for turning your normal desk into a standing desk.
Glovken by Nga Nguyen, a lightweight fashion glove for commuters.
Rexip.es by Sarah Henry, a collection of step-by-step guides for unique experiences.
Geo/Day by Sunnie Sang, a blogazine and Etsy store for geometric inspirations.
The form of utensils and cookware has a long history that is not only telling to cultural practices but to our own evolution as a species. Nearly 10,000 years ago we start to see skeletons without teeth, a corollary to the invention of clay pots that allowed food to be broken down into a mushy consistency for the first time, giving people without teeth the ability to get an abundance of nutrients. In Chinese cuisine having a knife at the table was considered violent and obtuse, therefore ingredients had to be processed to bite-sized pieces which encouraged the use of a single utensil, the chopstick. Utensils are the baseline of eating, they set the stage for the type of meal, they forecast which dishes will be served, they speak to the philosophy of the eating style and they influence the behaviors that will happen around the table.Â
What a whirlwind, day two went quick. As soon as we got in this morning all the groups sat down and started working on the problems they were most interested in from the day before. There was a fair amount of cross collaboration and it was beautiful to see how many groups theories led into developing other projects in the room.Â
A model was later surfaced by Richard that broke down the different problems surrounding data systems. In each system these are the actions: Framing, Configuring, Aggregating, Analyzing, and Publishing. Within these factors there are a lot of questions and holes that need to be confronted in order to make sure the intended framing and configuring are setup for the proper analyzing and publishing. Additionally in the aggregation process, especially in conflicts zones, how do you rely on a full and fair representation of the scenario through data? There are more-often than not political intentions with social videos, and even if there is a wealth of them they are only indicative of one side of the conflict. Also in this aggregation how do you set up the proper system that can quickly absorb and visualize new data when the barriers are low connectivity and individual risk for the purveyors of this information? Itâs all very sensitive.Â
What I realized today was that Iâve often been stubborn about the application of new technologies but I realize now that itâs because I hadnât found the proper use case. Often âproblemsâ in the tech world are merely social inconveniences and when designing for them you can get lazy about the layers of implication associated with your product. In conflict however the decisions you make about the tools and system youâre creating have a high risk for life or death consequences. What happens if local surveyors are caught with large sets of data on their person? How do you set up an encrypted mesh network with digital drop points? How does the effort of collecting data facilitate skill based learning for itâs purveyors? These all become questions of symptoms in the things we are mining and the implications of the data itself as a tangible object. Iâm inspired because I see amazing work happening in humanitarian efforts that are using technology in incredibly clever ways.
At the end of the day today the group had generated nearly 12 projects. They are looking at things like data hygiene, contextualizing the intent of social broadcasters, building risk maps to give locals new forms of agency, and building tools to make the process of data aggregation more efficient and connected. For the next few weeks we will be refining these ideas and will be presenting them in a formal critique on April 12th 2014 at the Interaction Design Department. Iâll be working with Tom Osann from Syria Conflict Monitor to help annotate and index social media, and Iâm so excited about itâs potential.Â
Overall incredible and eye-opening weekend, completely worth neglecting thesis for. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
Itâs been more than a year since the original âMaking Sense of Syriaâ workshop. In that time the conflict has only become more complex and I feel thereâs no better time to bring the group back together and re-contextualize the use of data and itâs implications on conflict mediation. Richard Tyson and the now official Special Projects Office, organized this event and they've done an incredible job of gathering a large group of thoughtful and talented participants. Itâs only been one day and I am amazed at the diversity of perspective, the quality of challenging ethical considerations, and the imagination with the potential usages for the data we've gathered.Â
This year the workshop will focus mainly on the town of Aleppo. For a large part of the conflict Aleppo was not involved in the fighting. Aleppoâs disinterest in the revolution was rooted largely in the presence of growing business and investments in the town, as well as itâs diversity in inhabitants (In 2011 Aleppo had the largest Christian population in the middle east). Currently it is in a stalemate, after already struggling through takeovers from the Islamic State of Iraq Syria (ISIS), Aleppo is now divided down the middle between the regime and the opposition. Checkpoints across the region prevent access and possibilities for travel, and there is only a single supply route through the city which dramatically affects the economics depending on whoâs controlling it.Â
This year we have the opportunity to work with four different data sets. Each offers insight into different levels of specification ranging from global rhetoric about Aleppo, all the way down to day-to-day utilities and perceptions on the streets. Although each of these data sets are rich in information, the conversation today revolved around some key questions that speculate on the function of the data. The high level question of course is how do we use the data? How do we understand the data? and to whom is it most valuable?
At this level of conflict it becomes superfluous to think in terms of whoâs right and whoâs wrong, or in other words whoâs the good guy and the bad guy. There is no standard lens for legitimacy. The best we can do is to think about the data objectively and map it in a way that tells a story. The inherent problem to this pursuit however is that by aggregating data into a navigable system you are building a tool that shows relationships and these relationships in the wrong hands can have severely negative impacts. When speculating on the value of the data it becomes problematic. A tool has to be built to understand the raw data but once something that powerful has been built who do you show it to? Â
Itâs rare we are faced with these types of ethics in academia, or at least having them be a direct reality of our creations. Access to this type of information is relatively new, and the rule book is still being written on how to manage the unintended consequences of creative curiosity. I feel blessed however to be in a room full of people who are asking these types of questions.Â
We ended today on a framework for processing this data, at least for our own purposes. Data doesnât necessarily tell us what we donât know but rather helps us hold more confidently what we do know and then allows us to see the gaps in our thinking. It became an important criteria to really check the validity of the data weâre picking apart. Why is it here in the first place? What was itâs intended use? Is it from a credible source? By creating a methodology of checking premises, we are bringing an ethical ideology into every step of the process. Itâs this foundation that then allows us to confidently begin to ask the right questions of how it can be used.Â
Spent the weekend constructing and deploying the finale to a series of experiments Ashley, Brynn, and I have been doing all semester about our relationship to our phones, photography, Instagram, and our surroundings. This hopefully explains the project, but mostly, as always, it feels really good to take something from our heads, make it real, and put it in the world.Â
My buddy Mike in Redeye Chicago! Check out his band Exit Ghost! They just released their new incredible album Elston with beautiful album artwork from the lovely folks at Sonnenzimmer.
I was photographing in Penn Station late last night when I heard screaming and loud music. A huge crowd of people came around the corner. Everyone was dressed in costumes and bright colors. One dude was dressed as a rabbit. Another had a giant, flashing, neon sword. Everyone was laughing, dancing, and singing, as very loud dance music blared from a portable sound system.
âThis is a new type of dance party!â someone shouted into a microphone, âJoin us!â The participants fanned out through the station, encouraging onlookers to join them. âDonât just stand there!â said the man with the microphone, âThis works better if everyone is dancing!â
I approached two participants along the edge of the crowd.
âWhat is this?â I asked.
âWeâre not exactly sure,â they answered. âWe joined two hours ago, and still havenât quite figured it out.â After a few more minutes of dancing in Penn Station, the dance party moved on, heading for another locationâŚ
Recently I came into a situation that has allowed me the opportunity to take a thoughtful look at what it is I'm actually doing in graduate school. Thereâs the easy answer: Graduate school is a place of higher learning in a specific vocation that gives you access to prolific mentors, real-world applications and the space to invest in your stance on the subject. And then there is the long-form answer, thus, this blog post. But before I get into it letâs do a quick history overview. Â
Didactic: I've been in New York for just over a year for the purpose of earning a masters degree in interaction design from The School of Visual Arts. I have just begun my thesis year. My background is in graphic design and before I decided to come to school I was freelancing in Chicago working on a range of print and branding work.
Coming to this program was an impulsive decision that exemplifies the general case-study of my life. I was at a crossroads in my relationship with design, having examined the dead-end of where my graphics carrier would eventually take me and having more interest in the systems behind experience. At this point, I hadn't yet found a model of design that fit my romanticism towards it. Applying to SVA was my way of jumping into the deep-end, in hopes that a new truth would emerge and reinvigorate my commitment to the practice. In that same breath, it was a hell of a lot more interesting than designing packaging for malt liquor. Yeah, I did.Â
Our Story Begins.Â
The way I see it there are two types of people who enroll in a graduate program. There are the oneâs that are making calculated career decisions. To them graduate school is a strategy to get a leg-up in the market, and the metric of a sound investment is transitioning to a new type of job that lends itself to more responsibility, engaging challenges, and ultimately larger rewards. The other type of graduate candidate is the one who seeks a more qualitative experience. I lean towards this category. Itâs the type of person who lives by the seat of their pants, seeking the experience as a means of accruing proximal knowledge but not relying on the system for a definitive outcome. To this person, graduate school is more a means of philosophical development versus vocational acquisition. While the means are different, both candidates are wildly passionate about design, insatiably crave tinkering and learning and at the end of the day regardless of means, ends, or goals, both candidates are making a large sacrifice to be here.Â
This distinction invariably causes tensions. Especially in a smaller program. Often the biggest frustrations I've faced in my experience at this level of education stems from my inability to fall in line with pragmatism which also, I'm sure, has equally frustrated my collaborators.Â
Earlier this year, our department chair Liz Danzico shared a blog post on the changing shape of design education titled School Days. It discusses design education as a reflexive platform that should embrace the autopoiesis of the individual. If we can agree that design is largely a humanistic discipline, then it should follow that the outcomes of the practice should be guided by individual exploration in pursuit of a distinctive voice.Â
âToday, studentsâ design work is less learning by rote than practice through self-examination. The resulting work, shared online and through institutions, events, talks, collaborations, extracurricular projects, and other generally pedagogical methods, becomes, in effect, an advertisement for its accompanying self, the designer whose interests and academic path of inquiry shaped it, framed it, and offered it into the context in which it now resides...If humanistic disciplines bridge the analytic, critical, and speculative impulses in understanding ourselves and our world, then design is increasingly engaged in all three of these impulses.â
From âSchool Days: Ellen Lupton & Andrew Blauveltâ
This point of view recognizes the pedagogical spectrum involved in the development of young designers, especially as it relates to the self. It takes into account that every experience of a design education has potential value but the final outcome is generated from a larger gestalt of lessons equally distributed amongst academia and self-initiated pursuits.Â
This becomes important when you think about the history of design. What was once a vocation rooted in marketing and commodification has now evolved to lay the framework for experience. And itâs no surprise that in the wake of all the wicked problems we're now dealing with our narrative is changing to be more reflective. This happens on the individual level of course, but it is also starting to develop the way we think about education.Â
Itâs no coincidence that an array of supplemental terms have been applied to the design title: âdesigner as authorâ, âdesign thinkingâ, âdesign researcherâ, âspeculative designâ, âcritical designâ. These titles are supporting the vocation with a stance and are emerging largely from conversations happening at the university level. Itâs coloring designer as a cultural agent versus a tradesperson and making a pact between designer as creator and designer as thinker. Authorship implies artistry, it enlists empathy, it is non procedural, and emerges from a place that encourages budding-practitioners to tell stories with authority. Just as semiotics is a framework to deconstruct meaning, design then is a framework to identify problems and cross-reference them with your individual insight to shape new solutions.Â
As good as all of this sounds, design education is still in a dichotomy of sorts. Just as there are two types of students that I mentioned above, there are two types of needs that have to be fulfilled in a design program. The pragmatic route fulfills the market needs. One of the earliest accounts of my program that I remember reading was a conversation held between Liz and a peer. The peer remarked on the growing number of graduates who were getting into the job force completely unprepared for the demands. The interaction design program began as a reaction to that, intending to cultivate a crop of young minds ready to take on the worlds new challenges. This was a huge factor for why I decided to apply, I do find value in practical education, however it wasnât the whole reason. As much as a graduate program wants to replicate the âreal-worldâ environment, it is not. Itâs value is the space it creates beyond the boundaries of the working world. Itâs value is a 2 year meditation on everything from design methods, lifestyle choices, time management, weird hours, failures, evolving interests, and cathartic Thursday night drinking sessions with classmates. I enjoy both sides of this equation and had I wanted to spend all my time theorizing I would have gone to Cranbrook. Why I appreciate my program is that eventually you have to come back down to earth.Â
In my mind the dichotomy lives between the rote and the self-examination as means to succeed in graduate school. Iâve focused my education on the experience and in this process have often been laxidasical about the assignments in between. If I had to pick the hardest part about coming to school it would be this negotiation. Iâm quick to justify my actions because it is how Iâve always operated in the past. Finding faults in systems, disagreeing with authority figures, feeling I knew a better way of doing it, really, itâs no surprise I chose to be a designer. What Iâm realizing now is that while it was necessary for me to fight in the past to get to this point, I am no longer in the same battle.Â
In the past year I've spent so much time trying to protect what I thought was right that I've missed out on fully appreciating the experiences Iâm encountering. The power of my program is not solely in itâs practical philosophy but itâs ability to push every student to be a well rounded creator. What is seemingly structured and foundational from the outset is actually designed to engage all senses of a creator. We learn about robotics, business, systems, history, services, data, research, empathy and most times itâs overwhelming. The program demands negotiation and prioritization every step of the way. However itâs process of self examination flourishes in the negative space between the scaffolding of the framework. Never have I have been in a place that so consistently asks me, âWhy are you here?â, What are you doing?â and âWhere is it all going?â. I've been so eager to find the space to answer these questions that I easily overlooked what was right in front of me. By simply participating with conviction all of my questions are being answered. Â Â
Itâs important to note âThe contractâ. This is the agreement between you and a process and can span many levels. By coming to graduate school I'm filling out a lot of contracts. The personal contract (doing my best to validate coming here, while maintaining a balance in my life), the university contract (fulfilling requirements to earn a degree), the student-department contract (acting with respect and courtesy as a representative of the department), the student-teacher contract (coming to class, doing the work) and lastly the student-student contract (understanding that they are not only collaborators, but friends, mentors, empathizers and will be the largest take away from my experience inside the walls of the program).Â
A lot of these contracts I've been loose about. Especially the ones that relate to a bureaucratic hierarchy. I've never been good about appeasing a system for the sake of assumed conduct. It may sound foolish but I didnât come to grad school for the degree.Â
Other contracts I have allowed to slip and am reflecting on itâs importance now. Namely the student-student contract. Like I mentioned before, my classmates will be the biggest takeaway from this experience. In spite of our different ambitions within the program, we are living such a unique experience together that only we can understand. It use to frustrate me that we weren't seeing eye to eye on a lot things. I felt that the persistent group work was stifling, unproductive and was yielding bad results. A lot has changed though. I've realized that I need to take ownership of the results that didn't play out well, I've been impatient, unclear and unaccountable in a lot of collaborations with my classmates and this obviously stems from my existential crusade of figuring out my place in design and life in general.Â
This summer I took a good amount of time off to reflect on my behavior and even in that pursuit I allowed obligations to slip to the wayside. I looked at it as a final bandstand to set things straight and realign my intention with school. My focus this year has been to mend my commitment to my classmates and with this intention a lot of good things have already started to happen. The conversation has a richer quality, the atmosphere of the studio is more casual and supportive and itâs allowed me to understand how community is built and sustained. Iâve been cooking a lot recently too and a large part of this new commitment is using that as a platform to engage my classmates in a new way. Iâm understanding that the philosophical questions are much more enjoyable to ruminate when they are being served to the class at large. This semester we've been experimenting with how we present insights, how we do research, how we collaborate and Iâm finding a new sense of ownership in the lens Iâm providing for these experiments. We're finally having fun.Â
At the end of the day I want to be here. Itâs helping me to grow up and perhaps the real-world application of grad school lives in the negotiation of these different interests. I get to be around smart, interesting and diverse change makers who are busting their ass to better themselves and the world everyday. Itâs obvious thereâs a lot of things about the education system that I feel need to be discussed more, but this program has a way of rising above that and providing the encouragement for individual ownership. Iâve fought with the framework for a long time and I will continue to do so, but this time I will make the distinction between my personal biases and whatâs actually necessary to provide all of us with a great experience.    Â
At its best design education acts as salon. Creating a floor for discussion, debate and ownership. The quality of the experience being equivalent to the depth participants are willing to go and how each contribution unveils different points of application and definition. Whether student, teacher, or facilitator, it is the responsibility of everyone to listen, internalize and negotiate the boundaries of whatâs possible, appropriate and worthy. The conclusions are one side of the value but the other and maybe most important is the fact that these minds have had the chance to engage with one another at all, spring boarding new areas of inquiry and potential for collaboration.
For the sake of interaction design, a field that is constantly looking towards innovation, disruption and the replacement of old models. It is increasingly important that we do take time to reflect, ensuring that we are pushing these types of conversations within and without the studio. Because we are still young in a field and young as a program, itâs these debates that welcome open mindedness. I don't want to see interaction design hijacked by marketing and commodification when it has the potential to be so much more, I also don't want to see my classmates and I get out of school only to be armed with production skills, I want to see all of us shaking things up in big established systems to find more holistic, efficient, and thoughtful approaches. The way to get there is developing a strong foundation in your own values as a person first, then as a designer. Itâs this underlying principle that has me flustered the most and at my worst itâs me trying to communicate this but not knowing how. But I am getting to place where itâs becoming easier and I welcome the feedback.
