Artist vs. Designer

            Why should art and design ever be separated of thought of as separate entities. Do we need to ad more labels and distinctions to our already complicated creative world?

 I think not. If we think of print as design, then paintings are design. Both are two-dimensional, contain iconography, and send a message to the viewer.

            If art is something that as human beings we need to produce, then why should art with purpose be any different? Design is something we all participate in. Some of us choose to be direct creators and others are the users that help the design evolve. However, we still label people as; either artists or non-artists, designers or non-designers.  Just because we choose a less “creative” career like accounting or science, doesn’t mean we are not creative, not artists, or not designers. Those are just different types of creativity. Is there a law saying a spreadsheet is not art? I know a whole lot of people who would whole heartedly disagree.

            So as my circle comes back around, perhaps we can begin to artists vs. designers. Since we cannot agree on what an artist does and what is designated as art we should allow design to be considered art. Designers should not have to deny their artistic backgrounds, or tendencies but they should also not be afraid to embrace their more “non-creative” traits.

            Artist and Designer  shouldn’t battle, they should join forces to take on the world!

Compare and contrast

            Some designers are so unique that they leave a lasting impression on our society. They change the way we see design and their contributions have the power to change the way society looks at itself. Many cannot be compared to each other , they have different disciplines, have different takes on the world of design and usually have nothing in common, other than the act of designing.

            However, I have come across two designers that have stuck me as similar enough to compare. Le Corbusier and Frank Lloyd Wright lived in different times and societies yet they came to similar conclusions about design in society.

            While Le Corbusier took to writings about the architecture of the modern world and using words to support his designs Wright let his work speak for itself. I find it most interesting that these two designers found that the only way to be good designers was to design everything. Yes, very controlling personalities but still brilliant designers. Wright is famous for telling clients that he would only build them a home if he was allowed to design everything within that home. From the chairs to the window treatments, it is all Wright. Corbusier also designed furniture, which he used in the homes he designed.

             What we can gain from these two, as designers is that we can do it all. We are unique in our abilities to see change and not be influenced by the current trends. As we strive to be different from those around us we should not forget that we don’t just work in one area. There are no rules saying we can’t design a house from floor plan to monogram typeface on the powder room towels. We may specialize in one area like fashion or interior architecture but if design is everything then designers can do everything! 

Design Conversation in School

          Design as a conversation is never ending. Any design has an affect on those that view it, it may be negative or positive, the viewer may not even realize that they are affected until years later and respond then. It is the responsibility of the viewer to respond to design and continue the conversation. As students we are in constant contact with designs of the past. Usually we just take them as they are, items we must coexist with, not matter how annoying they may be. What are we thinking?  We should be begging to look at design work from the past and put our own spin on it. Respond to the statements of the past, and continue the conversation. The student’s environment should reflect the learning style of that student but we are all different so how can large institutions accommodate all of this diversity? Design. We should strive to take on this most fundamental challenge in education. Make learning fun and affective though design.

            An article in Metropolis Magazine reports of a group of designers is taking on this challenge by rethinking the traditional school chair. There have been many advances in the understanding of how people work. Acknowledgment of different learning styles and a general understanding that the old ways of teaching are not what everyone needs. Yet we attempt these new teaching styles in the rickety old environments of teaching styles past. Steelcase has been designing office chairs for years, providing comfort and support to people who have already been educated. But what about before these people had jobs? Steelcase addresses this demographic with Node . Coming up with a solution to the “ one-armed bandits” as they call them. Taking the mundane classroom chair and turning it into the ultimate learning support system.

            These new style chairs are made for the modern person, who is larger than the person of the past, it’s easy to slide into the seat, no more careful maneuvering necessary. The workspace is larger which leaves space for a computer and hand notes. There is ample storage beneath the seat, room enough for a large backpack, the arms of the chair can also support the weight of a backpack and act as additional storage "hooks". But, what makes this chair special for the modern classroom, well what the modern classroom should be, is that the chair is made to move. The student is able to swivel completely around so changing from lecture to group studying is a smooth transition. The entire chair is also on casters making the student, workspace, and storage area completely mobile. This means the classroom is able to completely abandon the traditional room arrangement and change to fit the project needs.

            What is unique about this design conversation is that it has been silent for so long. Years ago someone seemed to have “won”, come up with such an economical, and simple idea that no one dared to question. But I don’t think everyone was really happy with the solution all these years. Kids fall asleep in class, text under the desk; pass notes, pretty much anything that isn’t learning. So now we have a solution, a tool to keep kids engaged. Yes, there are some weak points in the design. Price might limit availability, but the point is that we have recognized the need for change and how simple the solution to some education problems may be. Ok, maybe a chair won't solve all of our problems; we still have instructors with teaching styles that match those old clunky chairs. But change always starts with something small, why not a chair? This conversation is not where close to being finished, the beauty of design is that we don't look for the end, we always have a response.

Check out the full article :http://www.metropolismag.com/story/20100616/back-to-school 

Guest performance

            I had the privilege of attending a lecture by Professor Lampo Leong. He is a very prominent Chinese calligrapher and was kind enough to come speak at my Asian art history class. He gave us a good overview of the history of calligraphy in China then mentioned briefly his current research about the Ω curve and its use in studying the quality of calligraphy. Leong began by telling us about his perspective. He is formally trained in calligraphy and studio arts. To him, this gives him a unique point of view on at history. He is able to analyze and judge works based on their artistic communication without having the historians fact based influence. He also attempted to explain the concept of  “qi” as used in the Chinese culture. The closet word we have in English to translate is energy but even that doesn’t fully capture the concept.

            So many words in English have loose definitions or even have opposing definitions/connotation in popular culture. Then, is it a big mystery that we don’t have the right words to understand such amazing concepts like qi? The art of calligraphy is ancient and has changed dramatically over the centuries but it has always answered to qi. As we look back we can still see the qi of the time. During periods of strict governmental regulation the writing was ridged and confined. As more freedom was given to the people, more freedom is seen in the writing. New styles were allowed to develop, some so far from the original and standard script that they seem unreadable. But you don’t even need to read the characters to understand the artist. Some of the more free flowing scripts hold just as much value in their visual appeal as the words the lines mean.

            Leong’s best comparison is dance. It is a partnership between the artist and the brush. The ink records the steps as the bush moves along the page, flipping and jumping, fluidly transferring its qi onto the paper. But dance still doesn’t fit for comparison fully. You are able to see every moment of the performance on the page, you can replay the moves as many times as you want, over and over again. Perhaps this is a more accurate definition of design? Could design be the exact translation of qi?

Here are some photos of the demonstration after the lecture. It lasted only about 15 seconds but  the history and preparation of this art was conveyed magnificently.

If you want to see more of his work, or just learn more about him, here is his website. http://web.missouri.edu/~leongl/  

            

Outward Inspiration

            Inspiration is a fleeting, intangible quality that all artists, at some point in their careers, struggle to find. Setting out to create something seems easy enough. Just make something. Right?

            We have been told that we should look within ourselves. Art is something we as humans use to express ourselves. We all have emotions, comments on our own experiences. So creating something that is inspired by our inner selves shouldn’t be so difficult to express those experiences.

            Yet, we still struggle. We can spend hours staring at a blank page, pencil at the ready. But nothing gets from our heart to the page. So, like all good resourceful people. We look to somewhere else for inspiration. The world around us is vast and complex. Filled with unique people and experiences that also evoke emotion, thus, a creation. Sometimes an unexpected material is all the inspiration we need. As artists and designers we have the unique ability and opportunity to explore the world around us in our own ways. We are allowed and encouraged to look outside the typical uses of things. Sometimes this adventuresome quality brings a success, and sometimes it doesn’t. No matter what the result though, everything we produce can be learned from.

             A story of success is one of my favorite artists, Chris Gilmour, takes his medium to its limit and calls attention to the most ordinary of objects in our world. What most people consider a simply utilitarian object, meant to carry or protect more precious objects, was the source for something special. He creates amazing and magnificently detailed replicas of everyday objects out of simple cardboard.  Some is recycled, other parts, are purchased new. But, he always makes a point of showing clearly that he is using cardboard. The original labeling and print is visible in many places on his work. A constant reminder of the simple inspiration.

Here are some images of his work from his website. I highly suggest going and checking out other works he has done. Also the works in progress are mind-blowing. http://www.chrisgilmour.com/en.opere.html

Stone Soup

            The group activity of this week was to create a “stone soup” of design. It was not to be planned or voted on beforehand, simply created. We, as a newly formed group of design 1 students, were to become a team through group creation. Our challenge was material, with nothing predetermined, our design skills needed to flow from individual idea, to group thought, and finally into creation. Our results were not judged, nor were they meant to be permanent. So then, how do we determine the success of such an experiment of group dynamics?

            There are many different ways that one bonds with a group of people, ways to transform from a random pairing of individuals, into a cohesive, cooperative, productive team. We usually determine the success of the team by how well the end-goal is reached. However, in design 1, we don’t have set group goals. As individuals, we want a good grade and an orientation into the design major. So then, as groups are we only meant to help each other reach these individual goals? Lets say yes, this is the group goal.

            With this set, are we now able to determine the success of this stone soup activity? Perhaps, but not in a conventional way, we need a new way of measurement.

            We cannot judge the “proper” or efficient use of materials because there was no intended purpose to them with in the context of this project. There was also no desired outcome. My group made very loose plans at first. We assessed the materials that had gathered but only a few ideas were carried from the beginning to the end. We worked as we went. Discovering new ideas at every turn. Our starting point was the concept of a spiral, using a large tree, cardboard, paper, foil, wire, a lamp and other things we made this:

         As for the success in terms of reaching our teams long term goals, I would say our final product shows the answer clearly yes. Even if we all hated the end product, we made it together. We all have a steak in the creation, a responsibility to that design, even though it no longer exists. A very important aspect of team success is commonality. We already have being interested in design as a common bond but now it is personal. We are no longer randomly grouped individuals. We are part of each other and now, a team.

Childhood in design

            When I was only 7 years old my mother and I began to frequent a place called “Pack Rat” it was a huge warehouse of salvaged building materials. Things from remodels that worked perfectly fine but were no longer of use to the previous owner. This treasure-trove of inexpensive cabinets, windows, doors, knobs and many, many, other things, became my playground. We were lucky enough to stumble upon a huge set, 60 of them to be exact, of matching upper and lower cabinets for the small price of $650. To those that have ever bought cabinets, that’s a HUGE deal!

            And so my story begins. For the average eight year old, this would be of no interest, but for me it was an adventure. A challenge was given to me, to place these cabinets in a predetermined space, make them function for the kitchen workload, and minimize the 2in. slant of the floor. Of course I was not alone in this challenge but my mother did let me take control when I wanted. It was weeks before we finally decided the layout that would become permanent.

            The final room was of Spanish/Mediterranean inspiration. We hid that slant with a cleverly placed “lazy susan” cabinet and made specific work zones along the rather lengthy kitchen expanse. The red travertine tiles on the floor enhanced the soft red tones of the cabinets. We added sparkle and modernism with a slick black granite countertop and stainless steal appliances. A cute country window above the sink brought in wonderful light and a splash of nature. Under cabinet lights illuminated workspaces while two iron chandeliers warmed the rest of the room. Later we added an old butcher-block island, which gave just the right touch of country atmosphere.

            As I look back at this room I am struck by it cohesive design. The majority of the materials we used were found on accident. A miss-marked box of tiles lead to the flooring, remnant granite choose our countertop and a few home fixes gave us the matching chandeliers, which were in no working order when we literally tripped over them in a junkyard. All these things could have easily been looked over for something new and different. But, the old is what we wanted, the old is what made this room a success.

            This room is my marker for when I began to design. I had made suggestions prior to this, pointed out things I thought were pretty, done quick sketches of what I had in my head, but nothing fully mine ever came into existence. That is, until this room, it was mine, my mother trusted me enough to give me final say. I loved every minute of working in that space, and scavenging for materials. It was the thing I loved to do most, and the love has stuck with me to this day. I look at things now and think about how they could be used differently than intended, how I might be able to integrate them in a unique way.

Are designers born or made?

            Difficult question when we can barely give design, let alone art, a solid definition. Or even decide with certainty that design is an art form. But still we ask, where do these designers come from?

            The majority of people who call themselves designers have been calling themselves that for years. They are unable to determine when exactly that became their choice of career. Perhaps they say it was made solid in their high school or college years. But a single moment is extremely difficult to find. Does this mean that these people were born designers. As toddlers, did they rearrange their bedroom, or sketch out their own business card to give out at play-dates? 

            Of course these “born” designers go to school, learn from those who have gone before them and gain great insights into the endless world of design. But, there is something different about these few, they somehow know what they have to offer the world is unique. They know from a very young age that design, be it fashion, or furniture, is what they are meant to contribute to this world.

            To counter these apparently “born” designers, we have those that can pinpoint exactly what made them choose this rocky path. They can sit and tell you about how, when they were 12 years old they picked up a design magazine, and upon opening it said to themselves, “these are my people, this is what I must do with my life”. But what separates the “made” from the “born” is that mystery factor.                                    They aren’t sure what it is about the design world that interests them, they might not have any unique outlooks on products or spaces. But, they decide that this is for them, they will learn what it takes to be great. So research and schooling begins. They dabble in drawing, painting and computer technology. Learning histories, skills, and a new way of looking at the world. Somewhere down the road they begin to create for themselves, that unique, signature style that will set them apart. And so, a designer is made.

            Neither “born” nor “made” is better than the other, simply different. They both share challenges and success stories. They are both educated in history and may draw inspiration from the same sources. The difference in process simply adds a layer of complexity to our flexible definition of design and designer.

Design; verb or noun?

           According to the dictionary, design is both a noun, and a verb. I agree that the word fits both categories however; in my experience with my own design I want it to be more like a verb. An action. An interaction, of the original “finished” design, and those that live within the space or with the product. I design interior spaces; my designs are meant to be interactive. I want people to live in the spaces I create. Gain something from it and put their own fingerprint on the space. I want them to be inspired to use the space in new ways everyday. This means it is ever changing, thus, an action.

            I feel like this holds true for a variety of modes of design. We design objects for people to use and make their life better in some way. We could set out to make an everyday product easier to use, or just better looking. Sure we consider the practicality of the item during the design process but we never have full control of the variety of possibilities. Humans are masters at unique interactions. We could never predict the millions of possible end results of our designs. In this way, we must accept that design is an ever-changing action, something we must do!