Art 124 @eliseschmitt2017-blog - Tumblr Blog

New Media

Digital aesthetic is a very interesting term to me. Before I began researching what it meant, my first thoughts revolved around using technology and computer programs to create art. I thought of graphic design and using various programs to create things like logos. As technology improves and becomes more widely accessible, I can only imagine that the way art is created will become more revolutionized. I think we will see change in the way art is made, and I also believe that we will see resistance to this. Tom Dixon says that we are “seeing a new industrial digital revolution around us.” At the Milan furniture fair a few years ago, designers were not necessarily the stars, but rather the technology used to create their designs. Robots and various machines were used to fabricate chairs; computerized metal presses stamped out lamps and prototyping machines were spitting out a multitude of products that ranged from coffee machine to food. This was shocking to me. In the past, when this technology didn’t exist, we didn’t see product like this, but I believe that there have always been, and will always be people who will continue to revolutionize design. This is something I learned from one of the first books we read in class. Often, we see designers expand and build upon old methods of design; this is a way to improve the field. Although this technology hasn’t always existed, I think that there has always been something that was revolutionary to design. This revolutionary thing only changes when the new, unknown thing comes around. In this case, it’s the advanced technology. This was an interesting topic to research because I think it’s controversial. Like all things in life, I think humans have a difficulty with change. Why change something when we know there is a method that works? I think this is a concept that shows you there are always new and exiting things around the corner, but it’s often up to the designer to decide whether they are a fan of it or not. Personally, the thought of machines and technology taking over even more aspects of human life is frightening to me.

Sources:

http://www.artdigitalmagazine.com/?p=3216

http://www.dezeen.com/2012/06/26/technology-and-design-the-digital-industrial-revolution/

#week 13 #journal 13

Design For Social Good

A Survival Kit For 30 People That Turns Into A Stove

“Hikaru Imamura, a Japanese design student in the Netherlands, created the Heat Rescue Disaster Recovery after hearing about his mother’s experiences as a volunteer after the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami. The Heat Rescue Disaster Recovery set is designed to give displaced disaster survivors access to the basics: heat from a fire in the steel drum, food in the form of rice and bottled water, towels, and work gloves. Each drum contains enough food and water to keep 30 people going for two days--long enough, one hopes, for help to arrive. It’s a study in simplicity and economy, and Imamura is currently exploring options for producing the kits on a broad scale.” The website continues, “The contents of the kits could be tailored to different cultures and locations, and Imamura hopes to develop the idea further with a smaller set for individual families. ‘Although I used to think up a poetic and unrealistic solution before,’ he tells Co.Design, ‘I realized I should go more realistic direction, even if the idea won’t be super innovative as new design.’"

I think this project exemplifies social good because it is still trying to improve the well-being of humans. I think this could be come a design for social impact if the developers continue to improve and modify their design, eventually leaving a long lasting impact. I think that until it is further developed and used, it shouldn’t be considered a design for social impact, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, in my opinion, because both types of designs focus on positive improvement.

Source: http://www.fastcodesign.com/1670367/a-survival-kit-for-30-people-that-turns-into-a-stove

BioLite

“Forget the fossil fuels and create a smokeless flame using the wood around you. Power your devices while you make your meals with BioLite's TEG technology. BioLite, the makers of a stove that turns biomass (from wood to paper) into electricity, were one of the winners of our Innovation By Design Awards this year. The heat from the fire is converted into electric energy. A USB port means you can even charge your phone with the device. But BioLite also has a mission behind it: The sale of each model helps to fund the manufacturing of a less expensive model being distributed in developing countries worldwide.”

I think this perfectly exemplifies a design for social good. It definitely improves lives, it’s super cool and innovative, and it has a genius marketing technique. The reason I don’t think it is a design for social impact yet, is because there isn’t a design to help combat a pressing global issue. Although they are putting money from their proceeds towards a design for third world countries, I interpret this as a marketing technique created for social impact, not a design. Once they create their design for developing countries, I definitely think this could have potential to be a design for social impact. The actual product that can be bought now, in my opinion, is more entertaining than anything. It would be cool to have around and it is convenient, but I don’t see it solving any “real” problems just yet.

Source: http://www.biolitestove.com/products

#week 12 #journal 12 #social good examples

Design For Social Impact

The First Design, that was a finalist in 2014 for the World Design Impact Prize, is the Potty Project. This design focuses on the global issues of lack of clean water and sanitation, as it is “one of the most basic needs in any human settlement.” Despite this being one of the most basic human needs, over 2.5 billion people lack access to sanitation and over 780 million people lack access to safe drinking water. To combat this issue, the Potty Project “is an equitable sanitation system that enables 322 households to retrofit toilets to their homes.” These home toilets are a safe and healthy sanitation option, especially for women and young girls. I think this exemplifies design for social impact because it is going beyond a design that simply improves human well-being and pleasure. This design is literally meant to change the world, improve lives, bring awareness, and solve a threatening global issue.

Project website: http://www.julia-king.com/research/savda-ghevra/

Another Social Impact design that stood out to me, especially because of the conditions in the world at the moment, is the Refugee Housing Unit. Inspired to design a better refugee shelter based on the belief that every child deserves a safe place to call home, I believe this project is a social movement. Refugees now, are often given tents to live in that last up to sixth months, whereas this design is meant to last years. It has both durability and dignity in mind, which gives refugees a more comfortable and secure place to “call home during a time of enormous personal upheaval.” There is a huge refugee issue going on in the world right now, and I can see how this could be an excellent design that can change lives. I think social impact designs are related to global movements. These designs don’t just want to fix an issue; they want to change the world for the better, which is something I really appreciate.

Project website: http://worlddesignimpact.org/projects/project2013/32/

#week 12 #journal 12 #social impact examples

Social Design

Design For Social Good vs Design For Social Impact

When I hear the term, “Social Design,” I immediately think of designs that involve humans in some way. They may be interacting with the design, they may use it for pleasure, or it may change their lives (hopefully for the better). I think social design is meant to satisfy a “real” need the world has, and not just a market need. It is meant to not only satisfy the livelihood of human beings, but also their well-being. As far as the difference between designing for social good and designing for social impact, I do think there is a difference, but I believe that it would be incredibly difficult to set out to design for just one of these aspects. I think to design for social good, one must create a product that provides some type of benefit to the general public, whereas I think designing for social impact is much larger than that. I think social impact is more of an effect that derives from a design. Designing for social impact, I believe, can be positive or negative based on the design, although I am sure we all hope to have designs created that leave a long lasting positive impact. Several designs can be created that bring pleasure and strengthen the livelihood of humans for a short while, but they may eventually fade, be changed, or built upon. Designs for social impact are long lasting and go beyond focusing purely on the pleasure it will bring humans, in my opinion.

#week 12 #journal 12

marthawashingtonlives

What do we learn from this? We have to stop being naive, both as designers and consumers, that messaging alone can save the world. As we embrace the power of design to help create our best civilization yet, we must persist and follow through, not just with graphic design, but with the design thinking and tactics that will finish what we start. We must be relentless in the pursuit of a better future.

- David Berman, Author of Do Good Design on Design Edge (via marthawashingtonlives)

Communication Design

In David B Berman’s book, Do Good Design, he discusses the “do good pledge.” This pledge focuses on immediacy, ethics, principles, and effort. He writes, “The time to commit is now. I will be true to my profession. I will be true to myself and I will spend at least 10 percent of my professional time helping repair the world.” One of my favorite quotes from this chapter is, “Design your better future, then help us all design ours.” I think this is what the “do good pledge” is all about. One must be open to learning, creating and changing. If we are going to have an impact on the world, why not make it a positive one? Whether that is socially, physically, or intellectually. Berman discusses how greed hurts our world, which is a concept that I personally couldn’t agree more with. He writes, “Imagine what would be possible if designers did not participate in the export of overconsumption and the unbridled fulfillment of greed,” (149). This pledge is about the positives designers can do for society. He says a designer should be guided by what they believe is right, and that they shouldn’t abandon these principles. I think that all people could benefit from this. This chapter is simply about doing well for the world. I would definitely follow this pledge. Though I am not going into design, I still see a way this pledge could fit into my future career field of teaching. If we all took a step back and weren’t focused so much on greed and what we can do to simply benefit ourselves, I think the world would be a much nicer place. We have to think about others in all that we do. If we fail to do this, I think we are all kind of living in a world of isolation. It’s not a good feeling to feel as though you only have yourself. It’s not a good feeling to think that the only person you’ve ever helped in your life is yourself. I think power can be a great thing if it’s used in a way in which David Berman is suggesting. He writes of the need for a more sustainable, caring society, which can help be reached through this pledge. This was a very powerful, uplifting chapter. After finishing it, I felt very inspired to do more good, which I think is exactly what Berman wanted.

#week 11 #journal 11

Don't just do good design, do good.

David Berman

“The world is our common design project”

After the first time I heard the phrase “the world is our common design project”, I did not immediately realize the significance of the phrase. It was only after doing a little more research about David Berman’s life that I came to realize the significance of this phrase, and the broad concepts that it can be applied to. I found this phrase to be quite powerful, because I like the central idea that gives the phrase meaning. If we break apart the sentence, and start with the initial word, “the”, we can decipher that it is referring to the collective human species. The idea of the world working together, as one, in and of itself is a powerful idea for people to consider. Towards the end of the sentence, it refers to the world as everybody’s common design project. I think this is the most powerful part of the phrase, as it provides a clear visual of the people of the world working together to make the world a better place. That last sentence is quite broad; what exactly does that mean, making the world a better place? Well, in my opinion the phrase was intended to be broad, as it leaves the interpretation up to the reader. I think Berman did this intentionally. To me, the phrase represents every aspect of design, throughout the entire world. This could range from product design to interior design to industrial design. What do all of these design disciplines have in common? The common underlying goal of each is to improve upon the former entity. No matter the specific area of design, the goal is to make something better. When we apply this to the phrase “the world is our common design project” we an absolutely see the meaning behind the phrase. We, as human beings, need to work together in order to make the world a better place for everyone.

#Journal10Week10

Designed by Brooks Stevens (American, 1911–1995) Produced by Evinrude Motors Division Outboard Marine Corporation (American, 1929–2001 (Evinrude now owned by Bombardier Recreational Products)) "Sportwin" Outboard Motor, 1947

#week 9 journal

Designed by Brooks Stevens (American, 1911–1995) Produced for Sears, Roebuck, and Company (American, incorporated 1906) "Sears Screamer" Bicycle, 1968

#week 9 journal

Brooks Stevens (American, 1911–1995) Designed for S. C. Johnson Wax (American, established 1886) Desk Lighter, ca. 1946

#week 9 journal

design124-blog

Brooks Stevens.

WienerMobile 1958

Automobile Design

doyoulikevintage

un-air-d-autrefois

Brooks Stevens, Packard

doyoulikevintage

Planned obsolescence: instilling in the buyer the desire to own something a little newer, a little better, and a little sooner than is necessary

Brooks Stevens

Design and Cultural Context

Brooks Stevens, originally Clifford Brooks Stevens, was born on June 7, 1911, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. At a young age, Stevens developed a passion for designing and building, which continued to blossom throughout his life. At first, Stevens found himself interested in architecture, and left Milwaukee to study just that at Cornell University in 1929. This was the only time Brooks Stevens ever lived outside of Milwaukee, and eventually left Cornell without a degree. Upon returning back to Milwaukee, he worked as an inventory manager, where he eventually was able to persuade the head of the company to allow him to redesign various product labels. These initial steps were the start of Brooks Stevens industrial design career. A newer profession, Stevens wanted to pattern himself after talented men who had offices in New York City; however, he refused to move to New York City, and opened his own office right here in Milwaukee, where he said the business was. After the war era, Stevens found a new sense of purpose in industrial design, arguing, “an industrial designer in today’s business world should be a business man, an engineer, and a stylist, and in that direct order.” He created relationships with some of Milwaukee’s most prominent manufacturers, including Miller Brewing, Allen-Bradley, and Harley-Davidson.

Later becoming the only Midwestern founder of the Society of Industrial Designers, as well as the first industrial designer to be honored with a “one-person museum retrospective,” Stevens became Milwaukee’s star. In 1950, he had a show at the Milwaukee Art Instituted, which earned rave reviews. The Milwaukee Sentinel exclaimed, “Never before in the history of the Institute has it welcomed an event of this magnitude.” Stevens contributed to design theory through his phrase, “planned obsolescence,” which he defined as, “instilling in the buyer the desire to own something a little newer, a little better, a little sooner than is necessary.” Stevens’ controversial description of design as a marketing ploy is still heavily discussed today. Brooks Stevens died on January 4, 1995 at the age of 83, leaving his legacy behind not only in Milwaukee, but also in the industrial design field. His passing was the end of an era. He helped over 600 clients shape over 3,000 products. His designs aren’t forgotten and are stilled used today, both big and small, which include the original concept of the SUV and the wide-mouthed peanut butter jar. His memory continues to be preserved through various exhibitions held by the Milwaukee Institute of Art and Design and the Milwaukee Art Museum. Stevens contributed so many amazing ideas and products to design, which are only beginning to be measured in design history. Milwaukee is very lucky to have this brilliant man not only be so loyal to his hometown, but also as an icon of what Milwaukee can produce. I think his loyalty to his hometown and the inspiration he found here drove him to stay in Milwaukee. He was a brilliant man, whom I believe, followed his heart and did what he believed to be best. He thought business was in Milwaukee, so he stayed in Milwaukee, and it is a great thing he did.

Source: http://mam.org/collection/archives/brooks/bio.php

#week 9 journal

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Art 124