Call + Response

Page 1


++ {CALL} CONDITIONAL DESIGN


AUG. 22 & 24, 2019

++ {RESPONSE LOG} **** GROUP EXERCISE INSIGHTS: + PRIORITIZING RULES & GOALS

+ SIZE OF PAPER CAN CHANGE THE OUTCOME (SCOPE, CONTEXT, ETC)

+ FEELINGS: THE FREEDOM TO DISCOVER VS. ANXIETY OVER UNCERTAINTY

+ JUST LIKE A WEB PROJECT

+ INCONSISTENCY VS. ADAPTATION

+ SACRIFICE SOME RULES TO GET TO THE GOAL FASTER. THE GOAL IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN FOLLOWING RULES

+ DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF RULES

+ THIS IS LIKE A SPRINT CHALLENGE

+ NEGOTIATION OF THE MEANING OF RULES + DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF ANGLE DEGREE + QUESTIONING THE OBJECTIVE: DO WE REACH THE EDGE OR FILL MORE SPACES + LANGUAGE MATTERS + RULES BECOME MORE COMPLEX WHEN DEPENDENT ON SOMEONE ELSE (DOMINO EFFECT)

+ HOW DOES THE MEDIUM AND CONTEXT AFFECT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS + FORM VS FUNCTION (CROSS LINES / DON’T CROSS LINES) WHAT RULE DO YOU BREAK IF YOU CAN’T MAKE A LINE? + RULES CONSTRUCTED BY PARTICIPANTS + AS LONG AS THERE IS BUY-IN, RULES CAN BE BROKEN

+ BENDING OLD RULES TO ACCOMMODATE NEW ONES

+ RANGE AS A RESTRICTION

+ OUR HUMAN CHOICE, FREE FORM– WHY WE CHOOSE TO PUT A PARTICULAR LINE IN A PARTICULAR PLACE

+ OUTCOMES CAN DIFFER BASED ON PERSONALITIES AND TEAM COMMUNICATION

+ RULES VS. HUMAN INTERPRETATION

+ DIFFERENT COLORS TAKE ON DIFFERENT RELATIONSHIPS

+ DEMOGRAPHICS, NEEDS/ WANTS, VALUES, PERSPECTIVES, BACKGROUND

+ LOOKING FOR THE “RIGHT” WAY TO INTERPRET RULES

+ CARING CAPACITY, MAKING SACRIFICES, PRIORITIZING

+ THINKING AHEAD TO HELP PEOPLE COLLABORATING NEXT IN LINE

+ CONCRETE RULES VS. FLEXIBLE RULES

+ THE “CONDITION-MAKER” DESIGNED THE OUTCOME–IN GENERAL, THERE IS AN AESTHETIC COMMONALITY

Readings │Conditional Design Workbook, by Valiz


REFLECTION: A process is followed when working towards a particular goal or outcome. The process will influence the direction of the design and help facilitate discussion around the final design. How successful the outcome is, is dependent on the goals. Without alignment around the goals the process becomes loose and ambiguous (not necessarily a bad thing). Processes, where experimentation and discovery are prioritized means outcomes will tend to be more fluid and unpredictable. With flexibility comes feelings of uncertainty. However, if a specific goal is set at the beginning of the project and agreed upon, there will more likely be an outcome or solution that satisfies all parties involved. To determine a solutions success there will also need to be validation throughout the process.

This role is usually held by Clients, CEOs, Creative Directors, or Art Directors. Buy-in from key stakeholders along the way is essential. Finally, the inclusion of multiple different voices throughout the design process is beneficial to the outcome. Each person brings a unique perspective and it’s important to get a variety of input often and early so that the outcome is meeting the specific needs and goals. Without the input from outside sources, outcomes can fail even if the process was followed exactly. The biggest variable to consider in your design process is the people. Make sure the right people have a seat at the table. Ultimately, when working within any design process, there should be a sense of shared responsibility amongst all parties involved so that the anxiety of finding the “right� design solution is diminished.


QUESTIONS: + HOW DO YOU CHOOSE THE BEST PROCESS FOR SOLVING THE PROBLEM AT HAND? ARE THERE CERTAIN PROCESSES THAT WORK BETTER THAN OTHERS? + WHAT KIND OF INPUT IS BEST? ARE THERE RULES ON HOW PEOPLE CAN PROVIDE INPUT? WHAT IS THE HIERARCHY OF THAT INPUT? IS THERE A FINAL DECISION-MAKER? + HOW OFTEN DO YOU SEEK INPUT? HOW DO YOU BALANCE TIME WORKING THROUGH THE PROCESS WITH DECISIONMAKING TIME?


++ {CALL} FUTURESPECTIVE 2.0 WITH YOUR TABLE GROUP, CREATE A CONCEPT MAP OF THE FOLLOWING WORDS TO EXPLORE FUTURESPECTIVE. 2.1 THE COLLEGE DESIGN STUDENT TARGET PARTICIPANT: DRAWING FROM ALL 2.0 CONCEPT MAPS, CREATE A NEW CONCEPT MAP THAT CONSIDERS THE CONCERNS, EXPERIENCES, INTERESTS OF THE CHOSEN TARGET PARTICIPANTS, WITH THE AIM OF INTRODUCING, EXPLICATING, AND OR CREATING AN EXPERIENCE OF FUTURESPECTIVE DESIGN PERSPECTIVES AND PRACTICES.


AUG. 22, 24, & 26, 2019

++ {RESPONSE LOG} **** FUTURESPECTIVE/ CONDITIONAL DESIGN: In order to move through a design process, there needed to be alignment on the goal and what the rules were. This took the shape of teams forming (coming together in a space), storming (conflict), norming (coming to an agreement), and performing (moving through the process). Rules of engagement were established for each team as they worked through the design challenge. This exercise also highlighted the importance of setting expectations at ... WHAT the beginning of HAPPENS a process and WHEN YOU establishing a INVOLVE A common language to work CLIENT? within. Careers that deal with art direction, creative direction, and management prioritize this in their work to help their teams reach a desired outcome or goal. Going through a conditional design process works well for like-minded individuals, however, what happens when you involve a client? Do they impact the rules in

a different way? Does their authority and sway in decision making outweigh other’s views/opinions? There seems to be explicit rules we follow as designers when working with clients and implicit rules as well. The implicit being relationship management. How we socialize and empathize with our client is critical to making something that meets their needs and wants. This holds true for understanding our user’s as well . TEAM EXERCISE: We were challenged with breaking up the definition of Futurespective. Our team was tasked with the word Situational, a word relating to the Futurespective design thinking process. We defined it in figure 2.0. Our next task was to examine all parts of the word Futurespective and pull out a definition that our team could agree upon (seen in figure 2.1). Finally, to validate our understanding of this process, we outlined a scenario in which a class of college design students were using a futurespective


approach to solve a problem so that they could learn about the process for their own design work (seen in figure 2.2). WORKSHOP: Objective: Understand Futurespective as a design process. Understanding of how your individual situation and past experiences affect your futurespective thinking. Prompt: It’s the year 2060 and we did it! We solved climate change by removing all carbon emissions. This happened in 10 stages starting in the year 2020. Each stage is contingent on the ones before it. Work backwards to the year 2020 from stage 10 to stage 1 to arrive at our future of being carbon-free. Reflect on cultural, technical, economically, and social contexts as you are creating these stages. Length of Workshop: 30 minutes Debrief: Now that we’ve completed our exercise, let’s compare the results. From here we presented our workshop and through an almost design process we critiqued each other’s work in order to iterate upon it. Our next workshop was then modified in the process outlined in figure 2.3.

Without finalizing this workshop fully, our instructor then directed us to each take some time individually to brainstorm iterations of our team constructed workshop. The result of that brainstorm is seen in figure 2.4. WORKSHOP REVISED: Context: An undergrad design class has been learning about Futurespective this week through presentations, readings, and writing exercises. Now they are going to participate in a workshop facilitated by the design professor to put their understanding into practice. Objective: Further understand Futurespective as a design process. Start to realize how individual situations and past experiences affect futurespective thinking. Prompt: It’s the year 2060 and we did it! We solved climate change by removing all carbon emissions. This happened in 10 stages starting in the year 2020. Each stage is contingent on the ones before it. Work backward from stage 10 (2060) to stage 1 (2020) to map our future of being carbon-free. Reflect on cultural, technical, economic, and social contexts as you are creating these stages.


Length of Workshop: 2 hr (allow time for discussion and debrief Steps: There are 4 themes, one in each corner of the room. Together the class discusses each theme, brainstorming their definitions of these themes. The facilitator should record the brainstorm (on whiteboard) (20 mins). + + + +

Technology Economy Social Environmental

Split the class into 4 teams and assign each team to a corner (5 mins). Next give them the prompt for the workshop (5 mins): + It’s the year 2060 and we did it! We solved climate change by removing all carbon emissions. This happened in 4 decades starting in the year 2020. Each decade is contingent on the ones before it. Work backward from the year 2060 to come up with the steps that got us to a zero-carbon emission climate. Start with the year 2050-2060. Each team is given 15 mins to work on their product with respect to the theme they’re under (60min). Teams will switch to the theme

corner on their right and progress to the year 2040-2050. They start working on their product and storyline. Repeat this until each team covers every theme and year range. Teams should use provided materials (as well as any other appropriate materials) that can show ideas and process work, this will stay at the station. Each round the team will formulate 1-2 sentences of how they achieved the goal in that decade. Next, the teams will come back together at their original corner and prepare a presentation based on the timeline of that corner, where they display the combined process work, sketches and how the idea ... HOW came to fruition THEY (20 min). Each ACHIEVED team is given 5 mins to present THE GOAL their steps to get to IN THAT the future and dis- DECADE. cuss their findings and experience with the exercise. After every presentation, there is a 5 min discussion (40 min). Debrief: Now that we’ve completed our exercise, let’s compare the results ...


+ What do you think you uniquely brought to this exercise?

+ How achievable do you think this goal is using the steps you’ve outlined?

+ Could you see this process working to solve other design problems?

+ How does context play a role in solving this problem?

Figure 2.0


+ What do you think you uniquely brought to this exercise?

+ How achievable do you think this goal is using the steps you’ve outlined?

+ Could you see this process working to solve other design problems?

+ How does context play a role in solving this problem?



Figure 2.1


2.2 AS A GROUP, DESIGN A NONNEUTRAL “SCENARIO MAP” OF A PROPOSED FUTURESPECTIVE WORKSHOP OR EXPERIENCE.

Figure 2.2





2.3 SCENARIOS IN PROGRESS


Figure 2.3


Figure 2.5

Figure 2.4



2.4 COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE VARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES OF BOTH VENUES / EVENTS – EXPECTATIONS OF VISITORS/PASSERS BY. Before the convivium / in class workshop, a brainstorm session was conducted to start solidifying a plan for how we could engage visitors in both the Raleigh location and Portland location. Many ideas were generated in these small group discussions. (Figure 2.5)

Figure 2.5



++ {RESPONSE LOG} CONTINUED **** As we approach the Design Inquiry Futurespective exhibition we continue to explore ideas by flipping them on their head, combining them with other ideas, and categorizing them into various ... FLIPPING themes (seen in figure 2.7). THEM ON With a large THEIR HEAD, tool box of COMBINING ideas now at THEM WITH our disposal I’m curious OTHER IDEAS, to see where AND CATEGO- we end up we RIZING THEM when officially start INTO VARIOUS the workshop THEMES in a couple of days. There is a feeling of anticipation as we take some of these mental and physical experiments into the gallery space in a very public way.

In figure 2.6 are some of the ideas and concepts we’ve been playing with as we think about how we might engage visitors in an exhibit that showcases the outcomes of our workshop. The Anger Void was an idea I wanted to explore to inspire activism among visitors in the space and allow them to release emotions that they might not always feel comfortable expressing when dealing with an uncertain future. More details can be explored in the diagram below, but generally the purpose of this exercise would be a cathartic and shared experience among visitors.


Figure 2.6


Paris was an idea about how we could influence one’s sense of space and provide a framework for all of the concepts the class had regarding future thinking. We decided to name it Paris, a place that we could visit mentally, but couldn’t go there physically. We wanted participants to perceive the shared space between Raleigh, North Carolina and Portland, Maine and by naming this space we hoped people would more easily transport themselves there. This space we also called the 3rd space and in this space people had permission to think differently and be comfortable with the uncomfortable as it pertained to our past, present, and future, the original prompt of the convivium.

We practiced designing and making in Paris as an exercise and discovered how simple materials like paper and tape could create interesting conversations around communication and our understanding of a space. For example, when you wrap yourself into a tube of paper you immediately feel a sense of security and people in the room no longer seem so close to you. By doing this exercise within the Paris mindset we were able to let go of our anxiety and experience a space differently without judgment, leading us to new insight about our physical spaces and what that could mean for our future.



2.5 WORKSHOPPING FUTURESPECTIVE NOTIONS

Figure 2.7



++ {CALL} CONVIVIUM 3.0 WRITE A 500 WORD ABSTRACT FOR A 100 WORD ESSAY TO BE SUBMITTED AND CONSIDERED FOR PRESENTATION AT THE DESIGNINQUIRY: FUTURESPECTIVE CONVIVIUM, NOVEMBER 2, 2019.


AUGUST 27, 2019

++ {RESPONSE LOG} **** 500 WORD ABSTRACT:

CONSTRAINTS/RULES:

Stuck, exhausted, and procrastinating. The scary and obscure Futurespective abstract paper assignment on the to-do list, but untouched. Instead of starting the process of writing, I stepped away from the computer. Design reading is not exactly the escape I was hoping for, however, a few lines into the assigned design reading by Jones, a line jumped out at me. Jones described his frustrations with “looking for clue[s] as to how to begin, how to initiate a pleasant flow of thought and words� (Jones, 127). And after reading further, it was revealed that Jones had used a design process to create the very document I was absorbed in. The thought then crossed my mind, if Jones can write a paper using a design process, then so can I! Uncertain about the outcome and with a bit more zeal, I begin to outline my own process to complete my paper assignment.

General Rules + 500 word abstract + Double space + Times New Roman + 12pt + Actions + Place words on sticky notes: - Technological - Cultural - Social - Political - Geographical + In a separate pile place these words on sticky notes: - Object - Event - Phenomenon + Follow a three part outline: - Introduction = Thesis - Body = Feelings about the topic, the scenario, and the original approach. - Conclusion = Close with a 50 word conclusion + What should be included + Vivid descriptions of an object, event, or phenomenon. + Compare things + Present certain associations with the event.


Following this method, I began using post-it notes to help organize my visual brainstorm around the requirements of an abstract that I had outlined. In the end I came up with an abstract that centered around the use of space and food:

Instead of growing our food in rural landscapes that continue

to disrupt our environment, we should be opening up the spaces that people live in. With this concept in mind we performed two exercises in class which helped us loosen up and start writing with narrative and voice. Here’s a draft of the essay following this exercise:


3.1 / 3.2 / 3.3 TRANSLATIVE EDITS OF TWO OR THREE 500 WORD ABSTRACTS. / NARRATIVE EDITS–WRITE A STORY BASED ON THE MOST RECENT ABSTRACT DRAFT. / REWRITE YOUR OWN ABSTRACT IN A SPECIFIC VOICE/TONE. I’m in my red zone. Code red. Catastrophic, meltdown red. There isn’t anything people can say to make me see this situation any differently. We are toast. Burnt to a crisp reentering the atmosphere toast (wait is there even still an atmosphere left to enter?). I guess what I’m trying to say is that climate change is real dummies. Or for those of you who haven’t quite gotten the hint, it’s hot, like a fried egg on top of a bad sunburn hot. There are dolphins practically swimming in our “beach” homes and we still don’t have a freaking clue how we want to solve it? I don’t know how many cans I need to recycle or reusable bags I need to use in order for someone out there to notice. I’m literally jumping in my seat ready to take this bitch of a problem on. Like a 4th grader in the front row, her hand still raised. Call on me damn-it! Call on my roommate, my grandmother, my friend, for heck sake call on my dog. Just do something and let me help. I’d prefer not to be screwed-over like that ex-boyfriend who told me he loved but didn’t really “love me”. So if you really love me, or care about anyone besides yourself, you’ll realize I’m the answer to your problem. Let me solve it and while we’re at it why not make sure everyone else can solve it too. We can do it together, like that powerpoint presentation we were all assigned to make and Chad was the only one who didn’t show up. I guarantee you, we are all ready. Just give us the right platform.


3.4 SUBMISSION TO CONVIVIUM



3.5 FURTHER DISCOVER AND EXPAND UPON YOUR CONVIVIUM TOPIC THROUGH A PROCESS OF MAKING. SEPT. 16, 2019

++ {RESPONSE LOG} CONTINUED **** GOAL: Discover something new about my abstract topic and make something physical. DOCUMENTATION: Exploration 1.0: Express the personality and voice of my abstract in a more visual way. Use a device or platform that allows for personalization and individuality to be expressed. + Device used: Phone + Platform: Apple Messages + Visual output: Emojis I took my entire paper and translated each word and thought into an emoji. By going through a flow state of writing I translated my abstract line by line. As I was working through the paper, I noticed depending on how many emoji’s I put in an individual text,

the size of the emojis would vary. This difference created a unique flow when scanning the entire work, emphasizing certain sections over others (seen in figure 3.0). Not only have the emojis changed the interpretation of my abstract, but so has addition of visual hierarchy. Although this was an interesting exercise, I’m not sure what I gained and felt cold from the experience. So I set out to explore a different platform to input my abstract into. Exploration 1.2: Push the visual output of my abstract. Play with other tools and see what happens. + Device: Laptop + Program: GauGan a generative adversarial AI system that lets you create lifelike landscape images that never existed. + Visual output: machine generated landscapes


Without a clear approach of how I would implement my abstract into this program, I began doodling. With a few normal landscapes I started to think about how I could draw other images in this platform other than landscapes. Pulling key phrases or words that resonated with my abstract, I generated unique typographic landscapes (seen in figure 3.1). The unpredictability of my work was thrilling. Enjoying the experience I even engaged my roommate in the process. In my own eyes, I felt I was touching on something significant and an internal dialogue around this exploration arose. In my abstract I discuss how individuals, when given the right tools or opportunity, will do something about climate change. By empowering the individual with platforms that work, we are opening up the solution space and allowing for action in the face of inaction. When engaging with this tool, I felt the instant gratification of inputting data and seeing an output on the other side. My actions felt purposeful. The pastoral elements were serendipitous, alluding to the impact climate change has on our landscapes and communities. I was able to explore the

emotions expressed in my abstract more freely. Typographic expressions became unique and abstracted landscapes. Questions: What if I included others in this process? What story would their images tell about the future of climate change? How would the process of making and the thoughts laid out in my abstract parallel? Further exploration: Project these images and experimenting with overlays. Maybe flashing through all of the inputs and outcomes to see how they work collectively. Exploration 1.3: Try a different platforms to express words of essay (seen in figure 3.2). + Device: Laptop + Platform: Instagram + Visual output: Top posts of a hashtag search result Exploration 2.0: The final exploration, 2.0 was a result of a conversation with my professor. She suggested I answer my abstract more directly. So the question became, how I could test the viability of my food system platform? I decided to use my own house to explore this idea. Figure 3.3 is the result of this exploration.


Figure 3.0

Figure 3.1


Figure 3.2

Figure 3.3


Figure 3.3 Continued



OCT. 24, 2019

++ {RESPONSE LOG} CONTINUED **** To prepare for the Futurespective Convivium, the 500 word abstract needed to be scaled down to a 100 word prompt. Instead of presenting an academic paper/script, we are only sharing the best most refined parts of our inquiry (seen in figure 3.4).

LET’S DO IT TOGETHER:

Imagine opening up our private livin ing food for our communities. Could neously decreasing food waste? As of space as we transfer ownership o make up our communities to addres private spaces and shift our culture f

NOV. 02, 2019

++ {RESPONSE LOG} CONTINUED **** I did it. I finally presented my 100 word abstract and if you can believe it, the whole thing went over quite well. My paper prompted some lively conversation about what types of solutions we’ve come up with so far to deal with our food systems and how important this problem is for our future. If we can look back in our recent past to see how small communities produced food we can perhaps design something sustainable for

our future. Curious to keep this conversation going around what it means to share space socially and how we can empower individuals to address the scary complex issues of the world. I feel so lucky to have been selected to attend this event and proud of myself for keeping on when things seemed oh so wrong. đ&#x;™Œđ&#x;?źSometimes you just need to trust the process.


Figure 3.4

ng spaces to local gardeners and farmers and inventing new ways of producd we create systems that improve access to nutritional food while simultaspace becomes more valuable, is it possible to push the social boundaries of our resources from corporations and governments to the individuals who ss issues like climate change? Can we expand our preconceived notions of from Me to We! Our future may depend on it.


++ {CALL} READING DISCUSSION

Figure 4.0


SEPT. 11, 2019

++ {RESPONSE LOG} **** Monday’s class was centered around debriefing our reading over the last few weeks. Separated in small groups, we were tasked with recording our thoughts using a sheet of butcher block paper and markers. Without any further instructions, my team and I immediately dove into key ideas gleaned from our readings. Popcorn style, we all went around and contributed to the conversation and Jack was tasked as our scribe. Only when we had come to a consensus on an idea, did Jack decide to commit pen to paper. Main trains of thought covered included, chaos being an essential element of the design process, using a research method as a way to narrow your problem space and expand your

solution space, and finally, how rules and improvisation can lead to interesting outcomes (as seen in figure 4.0). The greatest learning however, happened when all teams came together and presented our brainstorms. During this discussion we became aware of the variation that occurred between each of our teams brainstorm methods. As one team tried brainstorming in silent another team recorded thoughts collectively in discourse. I’ve compiled all of our process work below for you to compare and contrast. This is just another reminder of how the act of simply doing can lead to variation and discovery even in the brainstorm space.

Readings │Design Methods, by C. Thomas Mitchell ◆ Designing Designing: 15-27, by John Chris Jones ◆ A Pragmatist Model of Situated Experience Design,” (From Situated Design Methods, 279-295), by S. Malou Strandvad


++ {CALL} ADHOC 5.0 SMALL GROUPS DETERMINE INTERACTIVE TECHNOLOGY TO EXPLORE THE POTENTIAL OF ADHOC PRACTICES THROUGH THE FRAMEWORK OF ACTIVITY THEORY.


OCT. 03, 2019

++ {RESPONSE LOG} **** What an interesting way of solving problems. Taking two things and combining them together for a particular purpose, to fulfill an immediate need. In theory, Adhocism, without much planning or thought, can be implemented to solve any problem at hand. Maybe this doesn’t result in the best or most refined solutions, but in theory, they are solutions that “work”. As a kid I feel like I lived and breathed this type of problem solving. When engaged in play, my friends and I would make all sorts of structures and things that satisfied our “needs”. With no inhibitions and unhindered by the rules of our parents, we could build or construct shelters or lasso together pulley systems, all we needed was some sticks, rope, and our imagination. As I got older, I rarely participated in or saw this type of problem solving happening amongst my peers. Why did we loose this sense of wonder and play? What made us stop creating in such an imaginative and improvisational way? With this on my mind this week,

I want to make it a goal of mind to improvise solutions more often and embrace my making side. A DEEPER DIVE INTO ADHOCISM IN THE CONTEXT OF MAKING: In class we took a deeper dive into this design theory. I was curious to see what we’d all gleamed from our readings and after a quick discussion on how we’d proceed, we began to discuss our findings. Generally, we came up with four themes that our reading encompassed: Standardization– organization and structure is the antithesis of adhocism, Remixing–bringing two things together to make something new, Choice– autonomy and agency adhocism gives individuals, and finally, Chance–there is some element of discovery when recombining the choices available to you (as seen in figure 5.0). As we were just wrapping our heads around the intricacies of Adhocism, our instructor interjected with a new conceptual framework, Activity Theory. This way of thinking is essential


5.1 SPECULATE SUBJECT ACTIVITIES AND CONSEQUENT OBJECT VARIATION INFLUENCES BY ADHOC ACTIONS. .

to understanding the interaction between humans and technology. There is a relationship between people and the devices they use, and by understanding this relationship, we can design more seamless and impactful interactions on these devices. Figure 5.1 is an example of a person’s (the subject) interaction with a technical system/device (the object) through an Activity Theory lens. Of course, we didn’t stop there. In an attempt to further our understanding of Adhocism and Activity Theory, we were challenged to combine the two into one through a mock study (as seen in figure 5.2). MOCK STUDY: Prompt: Choose a device to ad hoc and see how that device changes and influences a persons’ interaction with that device and vise

versa overtime. Device (Object): Smart TV Person (Subject): Hostess Activity (What the person is doing with TV): Watching a movie with a couple of new friends. Need: To become a better hostess. Context (Where this activity is taking place): Around 8:00 pm on a weekend in a living room. Adhoc Goal: Attempt to change what the TV was originally intended for. Take it from a place of individual engagement between the viewer and the TV and more of a shared social interaction between the viewer and the participants. Change what you might “need” a Smart TV for. BRAINSTORM PROCESS: Three cycles through the hostess interaction with the device. Each


5.2 DOCUMENT YOUR RESEARCH AND ACTIVITY/ OBJECT EVOLUTIONS IN A DETAILED MAP OR MATRIX OR ...

cycle builds on upon the last and we end in place where the TV is a part of the conversation and integrated in the social lives of the people in the scenario. After filming our scenario we incorporated digital screens that further illustrated how the Smart TV system evolves over time. Our final video walks through three complete cycles of the interaction between the device and the participant and we can see how this interaction evolves overtime. The main learning here came from presenting this video with the class. Denise provided the following insight: The adhoc programming (I assume) functions as a tool to address an immediate issue. In that way it is def. ad hoc (meeting a need in the moment), but how might the technology change interaction with it as

usage/activity evolves over a longer period of time? How might expectations (for instance) shift amongst all who experience it? And then how might that alter the technology itself. Would the TV remain a system of streaming entertainment? Or would it become a more integrated figure (whereas now it is a mute instrument awaiting commands). The feedback mechanisms don’t change all that much over the cycles. With this feedback in mind, we brainstormed the ways in which the device could evolve physically over time and how that would change depending on the context the smart TV was placed. Marcie Laird was able to convert this brainstorm into a visual timeline seen in figure 5.2.



Figure 5.0


Figure 5.1



Figure 5.2



++ {CALL} THE WORKSHOP 6.0 INTO THE ABYSSINIAN RELICATION OF IMPONDERABILIA: A CALL AND RESPONSE WITH THE FUGACIOUS COLLECTIVE (25 MEMBERS)


NOV. 11, 2019

++ {RESPONSE LOG} **** I’m back in North Carolina and can finally reflect on the three day workshop I participated in at the Maine College of Art in Portland, Maine. The whole experience was exactly what I needed and I feel grateful to have had the opportunity to work with such talented peers and learn from an amazing instructor. This world of design is kind of weird and I kind of like it. DAY 1: TRAVEL DAY DAY 2: ESSENCE MAPPING–GETTING TO KNOW THE SPACE We attempted to record the MECA Futurespective gallery in a way that we could share it with the students back in North Carolina. We all approached the problem differently as we divided up the space amongst the team. Figure 6.0 shows the essence map I made of the entrance of the Futurespective Gallery. When we were done mapping we asked ourselves how we could possibly translate these recordings into something digital. Our solution was a large human scanner.

DAY 3: PLAY AS A PART OF MAKING Day three started off with a quick exercise inspired by the first photo in the series below. We attempted to create imponderable experiences within the gallery using our bodies and the things we had around us. During the entire in-residence experience we attempted to send prompts back to the NC students. We called these “calls”. Below is a response from the NC students to our call “imponderablilia”. To check out more of these communication exercises visit the MGD Futurespective Instagram. DAY 4: REFLECTION– THAT’S A WRAP Our morning started with a call from the students back in North Carolina: a typographic invasion of space. So in contrast we decided to remove letterforms instead of adding them to our space. Denise typographic work was the perfect medium for us to work with. In the process we realized we could spell out the words


“door to there” and this was a nice tie back to the third space concept we explored in class. With one last day to use the gallery space, we worked to capture all of our making/play into one display. To frame our work

Figure 6.0

and engage the gallery constituents, we created these “How To” guides that instructed people to have their own moments of exploration and experience imponderabilia.



Figure 6.0 Continued



6.1 QUESTIONS / REFLECTIONS:

QUESTIONS / REFLECTIONS 1. Describe the arc of making and discovery: Research Concepts, Inspiration, Ideation, Conversation, Ideation, Feedback, Conversation, Pick a Direction, Make, Improvise, Work with Others, Feedback, Change Direction, Stop, Reassess, Ideate, Conversation, Feedback, Pick a Direction, Start Making Again, Stop, Reflect. 2. What did you discover as concerns?: + Collaboration: It appeared to be difficult for the people at NC State to work together. I found collaboration with 5 people manageable. However, when I felt that I was not contributing I went off to experiment in the space until I felt like I could take

on a role within the team. + Communication: All ideas were listened to and every idea was presented with curiosity and lack of attachment. We were clear about what we found interesting in someone’s ideas and championed ones that were more interesting to others through a consensus type of decision making. We would build upon ideas while making and riff off of each other’s discoveries made during the process of making. The problem with communication mostly occurred across states as we attempted to work with NC State throughout the workshop. This conflict most likely was caused by a lack of expectations regarding roles and directions for


what students should be accomplishing in the gallery space. Technology also played a role in this miscommunication. + Methodology: We discovered that we fell into a method of working when we started making. We would coordinate in the beginning in a design direction and then quickly self-assigned roles to complete the design. The problem with this, however, is people will likely fall into roles that they are comfortable with instead of roles that could challenge them to grow and provide an alternative perspective to the project. The diversity of ideas is inherently good for design. + Situated Making: The blank canvas could have been a huge limitation for NC State because there was nothing to inspire them to start making. + Describe the arc of making and discovery: I think while making you are coming up with ideas on

the spot. You are responding to the immediate feedback of the materials, people, and space you are working within. By making you are discovering variables and factors you might not have considered played into the design, to begin with. + Participatory Practice: You must think of the people you are designing for. This was a good reminder as we kept coming back to reflect after each exercise with the question “why”, why is this good for the audience visiting the space? 3. How much did original notions change? Why did they change? Or why didn’t they?: I went into the workshop without any expectations of what I would create in Portland, Maine. I have a habit of setting expectations too high and then being let down by an outcome that doesn’t meet my standards of “success”. These notions of what the workshop was going to be were more centered around how I would feel than what “things” I would create.


I expected I would have fun and learn from my peers. These expectations were met. 4. How will you approach blankness in the future?: I will approach blankness with curiosity and observe the space and the people engaged with a space before I begin to make in the space. Maybe inspiration can come from external stimuli and eliminate the fear of white walls. 5. Where did content come from?: The content came from our brainstorms and the prompts discussed by Ben in our remote meetings. For example, Ben’s interest in Imponderiabilia gave us a place to begin our making process in Portland, Maine. 6. How might the two groups unite the work now?: + Create a user guide or “How To Guide”. Create context around the space via a brochure and posters. This would also tie into the work done in Portland Maine. I’d also like to see how creating hats or glasses could help people

see the space “differently” and be a physical way to transport people into this mindset we experimented with within this space. + Create a map overlayed on top of the work of the process (print out all of our photos, implement receipts, and transcripts of conversations that happened) and include notes about why certain decisions were made and when. Expose the design process of the gallery to people visiting the space. Make the process of design the main event. Include what we learned through the process of making. + Create a prompt book for each experience displayed in the space. Informs how users should engage and what they should be thinking about. + Make a website to direct people to that shows the collaboration process that happened between the two spaces.


6.2 PROJECTS TOWARD LANDING SOFTLY.

NOV. 14, 2019

++ {RESPONSE LOG CONTINUED} **** I WISH WE COULD COMMUNICATE MORE EFFECTIVELY. WHAT IF FUTURE DESIGN PRACTICES DEMANDED A UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE? HOW MIGHT THIS CHANGE THE ROLE AND FUNCTIONALITY OF LETTERFORMS AND TYPOGRAPHY? This was the prompt my team gave ourselves for exploring the future of design practices within the context of typography. We broke this question down by first defining what exactly “universal language” meant. + Universal Language Defined + Globalization (human-centric) + Multi-species/Biocentrism

(nature-centric) + Accessibility (all senses) + Unified (visual unity) + Adaptable (evolve overtime) + Omnipresent (applied to all spaces, physical and digital) + Extraterrestrial (beyond earth) I decided to explore what type would look like in a future that was more inclusive of other species. As the need to address the issues around climate change becomes more urgent, the fate of our earth might be contingent on our ability to connect and communicate with other inhabitants of this planet. My hope that this type experiment will cause designers to question their importance in the world in relation to other species and maybe encourage them to look at future design problems with a biocentric lens. Unlike humans, smell is essential for animals to communicate with one another. Animals


can utilize smell to find mates, to sense danger, to protect, or to attract mates. With this in mind I explored ways of incorporating smell into letterforms and improve communication between humans and animals (seen in figure 6.1). With one experiment under my belt, my team and I came back together to discuss how we could combine our explorations in the exhibit gallery space and enhance constituent engagement. Below is our proposal for continuing our exploration for the rest of this semester. How we’d like engage users: + Use the two text specific panels in the first section of the gallery. Utilizing the layout provided, overlay the old display with a new prompt: “What if future design practices demand a universal language?

Figure 6.1

+ On each sheet of paper that physically makes up this larger question, include a specific How-To prompt. These prompts will answer the larger question and explore the question with the design of a typographic letterform. + To encourage engagement, a “I wish” prompt will be placed in the lower right corner that directs constituents to take the experimental letterform example and superimpose it somewhere else in the gallery space. + What interests us most about this proposed interaction is the unpredictability of the outcome. Ideally we’d like the user engagement to be an example of a way we could create a future universal language collectively.



6.2 EXHIBITION COMPLETED INCLUDING DIDACTICS.

Jack and I installed our final project on DEC 5, 2019 at 10:00pm (seen in figure 6.2).

Figure 6.2



How to harness energy through type.

How to communicate typographically with nature.

Figure 6.2 Continued

How to make type more digestible.


How to communicate typographically with nature.

How to make type more emotional.


Figure 6.2 Continued



Figure 6.2 Continued