2/20/08
Due to the differences in our disciplines, we worked together at nearly every step of the process in this project, since Annemarie and myself had almost no understanding of how Robyn’s disciplines connected to ours and to design as a whole. We each brought a different element of design to the table, however. I was able to contribute specifics about the progression of product design and examples about how product designers and designers in general have interacted with objects. I found that I especially brought questions about interacting with objects, such as “why was this choice made?,” or “what choice would I have made?”
Annemarie was able to bring the slightly larger picture of the context of these objects within the physical and cultural world. As an architect, she had a greater ability to see the long-term context of an object outside of its immediate interactions and it’s purpose. Since the historic field of architecture creates buildings for permanence, and usually for one specific situation, this is a greater concern for architects than it is for product designers. Product designers consider the context of the object en masse and may miss some of the specifics, especially about how the object interacts with different settings, as it is impossible to design for every setting in which an object can be used.
Robyn brought an entirely different perspective that was able to illuminate the basic principle of describing and understanding objects—designers can break objects down into pieces and characteristics, taking these as definitions of the object outside of its social, cultural or historical context. Robyn was able to highlight that the characteristics of an object are in fact design choices that are specific to the object and require attention individually and in the context of the whole object. A series of these choices makes up a complete object.
We really struggled with limiting our presentation, since we were overwhelmed by the amount of interaction that we have with objects and how much they are a part of our whole psyche and experience. Since objects are everything, what could we possibly talk about other than objects? There were so many things that we also left out and weren’t even able to discuss because the presentation too short. After all, we’ve been trained for years on how to understand and evaluate objects in this way. There was no way we were going to be able to boil it down to 12 minutes and make it understandable.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Designer's Approach to Objects
2/20/08
It’s really hard to write about product design’s approach to objects, because it’s so all encompassing that it’s nearly impossible to break it down into just a few fundamental concepts. The other difficulty with breaking this down to the fundamentals is that I can’t remember that long ago when I didn’t think this way. I’ve been seeing designed objects for most of my life, but consciously since I was in 5th grade. Before that, I don’t even remember interacting with objects on an object level, although I suppose I’ve always be interested in the design of objects have always thought in the way designers think.
I’ve also done extensive amounts of reading about design and how designers think, so finding research material and scholarly articles was not much of a challenge. After all, I listen to podcasts about design, read blogs about design and have a mini-design library sitting next to my bed. It was just a matter of picking and choosing the most applicable examples to boil down to get to the heart of design and the way designers think about objects.
Working on this project with Annemarie and Robyn was especially interesting because although I have a pretty good understanding of how architecture interacts with objects, I have absolutely no understanding of computer science and it’s interactions with objects. As far as I’m concerned, computer science makes the whole field of objects unreal. It was very interesting for me to see Robyn draw the parallels between my physical and visual perception of objects to her virtual and element-based object construction. The way that Robyn broke objects down into their characteristics was reminiscent of the way that I perceive objects, but for some reason obscured much of my understanding of the object.
I really realized how little I think about thinking about objects. It is entirely second nature to me to think about how objects are made and what kinds of choices were made to get to that design of an object. It also rarely occurs to me that other people don’t think that way all the time—maybe because my closest object communicators also think about objects in exactly the same way.
The other thing that I found striking was the requirement of being able to see or visualize or experience the object in some way. For designers, invisible objects mean nothing. We must be able to interact with them and appreciate the experience of the object before it becomes real to us. I think that it’s different in other disciplines (I suppose I’ll find out in the next week), but I think that sometimes objects can be evaluated solely based on their cultural influence or impact, which is something that an object need not be present for to impact.
The most difficult part about this project is also what I love most about design—design is everything. The quote that we opened with from Pezzetta really sums up this sentiment. Everything is designed, and as a result, design is everything. At the same time, design is really nothing. Design alone can’t solve the worlds problems, and design is not human and can’t give you a hug. But, design combines every discipline with creativity and technology, and considers as many angles as is popular or possible in the context of the solution. Design ends up being a never-ending process.
What I’m most interested in finding out from our presentation is if our class will grasp what we’re saying about the way we look at objects. This concept is so basic and fundamental to us we can’t separate it from our existence or our object experience. We spent some time wishing that we had been randomly assigned someone who didn’t have a determined field so we could run these concepts by them.
This experience left me realizing that there is still so much about the context of design itself that I know little about. I’m taking an independent study in writing this semester focusing on writing about design, and during the research for this project I discovered about 10 more sources that I had not yet considered evaluating. This only added to my being overwhelmed. There is a limitless amount of information covering this topic, and it doesn’t seem possible to ever fully synthesis this information.
One thing that I looked at in the research that has significantly influenced my thinking for the last few days is the book Thoughtless Acts by Fulton and IDEO. Focusing mostly on how we modify our environments (with or without products) to make them more livable, the book is a study in self-made design—the design that we thoughtlessly participate in everyday. I’ve spent even more time than usual evaluating this incidental design and thinking about how I modify my own personal objects to make them more functional for my purposes. For example, I clip my keys on to my bag’s back clip, so they’re accessible right in front of me for when I get off my bike and need to lock it. This is certainly not the intention of the back clip, but it means that I will always know where my keys are, AND have access to my pepper spray easily in any situation.
This project was interesting for me in the context of evaluating products and design from someone else’s perspective, something that I haven’t tried to do for a long time. I think this will help to inform my writing and communication about objects to remind me that there is little understanding about the way that designers even think about objects to begin with—then I can set my readers on an equal playing field with me in talking about objects.
It’s really hard to write about product design’s approach to objects, because it’s so all encompassing that it’s nearly impossible to break it down into just a few fundamental concepts. The other difficulty with breaking this down to the fundamentals is that I can’t remember that long ago when I didn’t think this way. I’ve been seeing designed objects for most of my life, but consciously since I was in 5th grade. Before that, I don’t even remember interacting with objects on an object level, although I suppose I’ve always be interested in the design of objects have always thought in the way designers think.
I’ve also done extensive amounts of reading about design and how designers think, so finding research material and scholarly articles was not much of a challenge. After all, I listen to podcasts about design, read blogs about design and have a mini-design library sitting next to my bed. It was just a matter of picking and choosing the most applicable examples to boil down to get to the heart of design and the way designers think about objects.
Working on this project with Annemarie and Robyn was especially interesting because although I have a pretty good understanding of how architecture interacts with objects, I have absolutely no understanding of computer science and it’s interactions with objects. As far as I’m concerned, computer science makes the whole field of objects unreal. It was very interesting for me to see Robyn draw the parallels between my physical and visual perception of objects to her virtual and element-based object construction. The way that Robyn broke objects down into their characteristics was reminiscent of the way that I perceive objects, but for some reason obscured much of my understanding of the object.
I really realized how little I think about thinking about objects. It is entirely second nature to me to think about how objects are made and what kinds of choices were made to get to that design of an object. It also rarely occurs to me that other people don’t think that way all the time—maybe because my closest object communicators also think about objects in exactly the same way.
The other thing that I found striking was the requirement of being able to see or visualize or experience the object in some way. For designers, invisible objects mean nothing. We must be able to interact with them and appreciate the experience of the object before it becomes real to us. I think that it’s different in other disciplines (I suppose I’ll find out in the next week), but I think that sometimes objects can be evaluated solely based on their cultural influence or impact, which is something that an object need not be present for to impact.
The most difficult part about this project is also what I love most about design—design is everything. The quote that we opened with from Pezzetta really sums up this sentiment. Everything is designed, and as a result, design is everything. At the same time, design is really nothing. Design alone can’t solve the worlds problems, and design is not human and can’t give you a hug. But, design combines every discipline with creativity and technology, and considers as many angles as is popular or possible in the context of the solution. Design ends up being a never-ending process.
What I’m most interested in finding out from our presentation is if our class will grasp what we’re saying about the way we look at objects. This concept is so basic and fundamental to us we can’t separate it from our existence or our object experience. We spent some time wishing that we had been randomly assigned someone who didn’t have a determined field so we could run these concepts by them.
This experience left me realizing that there is still so much about the context of design itself that I know little about. I’m taking an independent study in writing this semester focusing on writing about design, and during the research for this project I discovered about 10 more sources that I had not yet considered evaluating. This only added to my being overwhelmed. There is a limitless amount of information covering this topic, and it doesn’t seem possible to ever fully synthesis this information.
One thing that I looked at in the research that has significantly influenced my thinking for the last few days is the book Thoughtless Acts by Fulton and IDEO. Focusing mostly on how we modify our environments (with or without products) to make them more livable, the book is a study in self-made design—the design that we thoughtlessly participate in everyday. I’ve spent even more time than usual evaluating this incidental design and thinking about how I modify my own personal objects to make them more functional for my purposes. For example, I clip my keys on to my bag’s back clip, so they’re accessible right in front of me for when I get off my bike and need to lock it. This is certainly not the intention of the back clip, but it means that I will always know where my keys are, AND have access to my pepper spray easily in any situation.
This project was interesting for me in the context of evaluating products and design from someone else’s perspective, something that I haven’t tried to do for a long time. I think this will help to inform my writing and communication about objects to remind me that there is little understanding about the way that designers even think about objects to begin with—then I can set my readers on an equal playing field with me in talking about objects.
Dear Elizabeth
2/17/08
Dear Elizabeth:
I enjoyed your letter about objects and collections. It's interesting to hear another person's perspectives on what I do. Your list was pretty good, many of the other collections are sub-categories of the ones you mentioned or collections that haven't been on display.
My collection tendency started pretty early. I use to pick stuff out of the garbage on our block on Kenilworth in grade school. I had a space in the back of the house that was created when the kitchen was remodeled and they closed off the back door and the stairs that went into the kitchen from the basement. I use to collect my objects there which was a cool place because things could be arranged on stairs. The only specific thing I remember was a complete set of the 1910 Encyclopedia Britannica that someone across the street threw out.
I think my first conscious collecting was in 1968 (junior year in high school) when I saved a newspaper article on the Beatles White Album which was the beginning of many newspaper articles, magazines and books on the Beatles that obviously expanded to include anything Beatles and eventually, anything musical.
Uncle Dan made an interesting comment once when he said that he didn't feel he needed to collect things as long as he knew someone else was collecting them. One of the things behind collecting for me has been "having to have" which gets stronger when I see something I'd like to have, don't get it and then later wanting it but not being able to get it. There's a small drinking glass I saw on a trip that had musicians on it in red that I wanted but it was $20. Usually these glasses sell for $4 – 5. So, I didn't get it – and still think about it. I bought a set of Beatle postcards for $125 to not have that happen.
So, all of this seems to make me sound very materialistic and very attached to my objects and collections, if not having my identity wrapped up in them. I, however, don't think this is true. It is true that I derive great pleasure and satisfaction from these things. When the brothers are working in the basement, I'll pull out a book or magazine I haven't looked at for a while and will marvel and the pictures or stories in it. I love seeing the things I have and fantasize of lighted glass cabinets to display my things. There is also great satisfaction in having a complete collection of something (while I was collecting Simpson's comics, I had every single issue of every variations they released except on Treehouse of Horror issue).
However, when I comes down to it, there is only one object that means the most to me and that is my Martin guitar. Everything else could go and will go. I've spent my adult life more and more clearly defining my Self as the life force that flows through me and the consciousness that can perceive myself and the world, so these objects are no more me than you are me.
I also see a parallel between collecting and archiving. I think I archive because my memory is quite selective and when I recall past events I tend to generalize to the point of losing details which results in losing the richness and meaning of the experience. One of the things I marvel at Charley about is his ability to tell a story with such detail that it's like you are reliving it with him. Without this ability, I collect references to the past in dates, photos, videos, recordings, papers, calendars, notes, folders and artifacts, so I can partially recapture what happened.
I'm sure that on a psychological/emotional level that collecting and archiving has served to calm anxiety, fear and insecurity just as my challenges with eating have done. As you talked about, collecting gives me control over something which produces a sense of control even if it's an illusion.
One of the other questions that has come up for me around collecting and archiving has been purpose. What's the purpose? I think I've addressed some of this already but I think it's just a way to be. I feel I could be a different way, make other choices but this way suits me. I think about postcard collecting and how it gives me a curious focus for searching when I'm traveling, delight when I find some that I don't have (although more often these days I think I don't have them when I do. See memory problems above) and a relatively cheap way to bring something home. Also, as many have said, I'm one of the easiest people to buy gifts for.
As far as the pineapple and pirates, I was glad that you spoke up about stopping those progressions. It's just a simplistic way to think of someone which can make gift giving easier. I don't think I ever confused you with the objects but I can understand how it may have been confusing for you.
Thanks for giving me a chance to think and write about these aspects of my life.
Love,
Dad
Dear Elizabeth:
I enjoyed your letter about objects and collections. It's interesting to hear another person's perspectives on what I do. Your list was pretty good, many of the other collections are sub-categories of the ones you mentioned or collections that haven't been on display.
My collection tendency started pretty early. I use to pick stuff out of the garbage on our block on Kenilworth in grade school. I had a space in the back of the house that was created when the kitchen was remodeled and they closed off the back door and the stairs that went into the kitchen from the basement. I use to collect my objects there which was a cool place because things could be arranged on stairs. The only specific thing I remember was a complete set of the 1910 Encyclopedia Britannica that someone across the street threw out.
I think my first conscious collecting was in 1968 (junior year in high school) when I saved a newspaper article on the Beatles White Album which was the beginning of many newspaper articles, magazines and books on the Beatles that obviously expanded to include anything Beatles and eventually, anything musical.
Uncle Dan made an interesting comment once when he said that he didn't feel he needed to collect things as long as he knew someone else was collecting them. One of the things behind collecting for me has been "having to have" which gets stronger when I see something I'd like to have, don't get it and then later wanting it but not being able to get it. There's a small drinking glass I saw on a trip that had musicians on it in red that I wanted but it was $20. Usually these glasses sell for $4 – 5. So, I didn't get it – and still think about it. I bought a set of Beatle postcards for $125 to not have that happen.
So, all of this seems to make me sound very materialistic and very attached to my objects and collections, if not having my identity wrapped up in them. I, however, don't think this is true. It is true that I derive great pleasure and satisfaction from these things. When the brothers are working in the basement, I'll pull out a book or magazine I haven't looked at for a while and will marvel and the pictures or stories in it. I love seeing the things I have and fantasize of lighted glass cabinets to display my things. There is also great satisfaction in having a complete collection of something (while I was collecting Simpson's comics, I had every single issue of every variations they released except on Treehouse of Horror issue).
However, when I comes down to it, there is only one object that means the most to me and that is my Martin guitar. Everything else could go and will go. I've spent my adult life more and more clearly defining my Self as the life force that flows through me and the consciousness that can perceive myself and the world, so these objects are no more me than you are me.
I also see a parallel between collecting and archiving. I think I archive because my memory is quite selective and when I recall past events I tend to generalize to the point of losing details which results in losing the richness and meaning of the experience. One of the things I marvel at Charley about is his ability to tell a story with such detail that it's like you are reliving it with him. Without this ability, I collect references to the past in dates, photos, videos, recordings, papers, calendars, notes, folders and artifacts, so I can partially recapture what happened.
I'm sure that on a psychological/emotional level that collecting and archiving has served to calm anxiety, fear and insecurity just as my challenges with eating have done. As you talked about, collecting gives me control over something which produces a sense of control even if it's an illusion.
One of the other questions that has come up for me around collecting and archiving has been purpose. What's the purpose? I think I've addressed some of this already but I think it's just a way to be. I feel I could be a different way, make other choices but this way suits me. I think about postcard collecting and how it gives me a curious focus for searching when I'm traveling, delight when I find some that I don't have (although more often these days I think I don't have them when I do. See memory problems above) and a relatively cheap way to bring something home. Also, as many have said, I'm one of the easiest people to buy gifts for.
As far as the pineapple and pirates, I was glad that you spoke up about stopping those progressions. It's just a simplistic way to think of someone which can make gift giving easier. I don't think I ever confused you with the objects but I can understand how it may have been confusing for you.
Thanks for giving me a chance to think and write about these aspects of my life.
Love,
Dad
Dear Dad
Dear Dad,
Like I told you on the phone the other day, we’ve been talking a lot about collections in my objects class. Of course, I end up giggling because I think about these conversations in the context of the penultimate collector in my life—you. I’ve made a partial list of your collections that I could recall off the top of my head in class:
• Music postcards
• Tacky 60’s postcards
• Tacky record sleeves
• Mini pianos
• Figures with instruments
• Mcdonalds toys (defunct?)
• Star wars ship figures
• Old lego ships
• Star trek figures
• Matchbox cards
• Drummer figures
• Beatles memorabilia
• Beatles books, videos, etc
• Michael Jackson music
• David Roth songs
• Stamps
• Coins
• Pipes
• Fender hats
• Hawaiian shirts
• Shot glasses
• Interesting glasses
• Bottle openers
• Guitars
• Things with unknown uses
• Family history
• Rutles things
• JBB songs
• Own songs
• Guitar picks
And this is just a partial list. You have more collections than I can even begin to comprehend. For example, what is your collection of one!? I don’t even know what object you could be talking about. Maybe it’s the piano or something.
Before this class, I had never really thought about how my relationship to objects is so dependent on your relationship to them. After all, what kid grows up in a house with collections of everything, in custom boxes or on custom shelves, out on display.
I don’t fully understand why you’re driven (or drawn) to collecting in the way that you do, but I have some reflections on how this has changed my interactions with objects, and how it has driven me to be more of the way that I am about objects.
Your collections are a lot about categories—categories that primarily reflect your interests, but also just reflect things that you think are cool, like neat glasses, the Simpsons and legos. A lot of your collections are about music, because that is what you first and foremost love.
We’ve talked in class about collections as a way of orienting ourselves in the world of stuff—and also about ways to have control over the stuff around us. Your collections are the ultimate control. They are all so well organized, and you know a lot of details about most of them (if not all). Many of your collections are also intended to inform you even more about your other collections, like your collection of books about guitars. That certainly grounds you in relationship to your collection of guitars.
I’ve ended up with a confused relationship about objects. Obviously, they are all that I think about, but at the same time there are many reasons ways in which I want to (and sometimes do) reject them to their core, as representations of our consumption. I love beautiful objects in form and in function. I am most interested in collecting things which serve a purpose.
When I was younger, my collections mirrored yours in a much more obvious way. My collections of 3” horses, of dollhouse furniture (including full sets of hand-made doll dishes), of lego castles, of playmobiles, of little figurines and whatever else I collected. Now, I’ve reduced my collections in a very different way—to things that are practical and useful in my life. I have a collection of clothes (include of hooded sweatshirts and of blazers), a collection of pyrex orange daisy bowls & serving dishes, a collection of mod salt and pepper shakers, and of course my collection of Heywood Wakefield furniture. I am looking for beauty and function, which is an exact reflection of what I look for in my design work as well. I don’t think I have the self awareness at this point in my life to determine how this type of collecting reflects on how I feel about myself in relation to this stuff—these are things that surround me, but I’m not sure they define me.
That’s another point. You and Mom have both been influential in selecting (or forcing?) things that define me…and I have likewise ended up defining you in the manner of things. Like that poster Julia made when she was little of “Things my Mommy likes”, part of your persona is defined by your love of Beatles things, and by your collection of musical figurines. And you’ve defined my persona partially by my collection of pineapples and pirates, which in reality is not a collection at all but an accumulation of objects presented to me by other people that ended up becoming a collection representing the interpretations of the people around me. I don’t see these things representing me that much—the pineapples, after all, started as joke—but they have come to define me by the collections that you’ve helped to create around me.
One particular thing we’ve been talking about in class is the way that collections become absorbed into museums. While you’re in the process of collection Kramer family history for the Kramer family museum, you’re also creating your own museum—a very particular documentation of the strange collection of popular culture and artifacts that appeal to you. I’m always impressed with your interests and with the care you take to preserve them—it will be quite the site for an archeologist to unearth years in the future.
Thanks for all your objects. I’ll write to you again about them as we keep going with this class.
Love,
Elizabeth
Like I told you on the phone the other day, we’ve been talking a lot about collections in my objects class. Of course, I end up giggling because I think about these conversations in the context of the penultimate collector in my life—you. I’ve made a partial list of your collections that I could recall off the top of my head in class:
• Music postcards
• Tacky 60’s postcards
• Tacky record sleeves
• Mini pianos
• Figures with instruments
• Mcdonalds toys (defunct?)
• Star wars ship figures
• Old lego ships
• Star trek figures
• Matchbox cards
• Drummer figures
• Beatles memorabilia
• Beatles books, videos, etc
• Michael Jackson music
• David Roth songs
• Stamps
• Coins
• Pipes
• Fender hats
• Hawaiian shirts
• Shot glasses
• Interesting glasses
• Bottle openers
• Guitars
• Things with unknown uses
• Family history
• Rutles things
• JBB songs
• Own songs
• Guitar picks
And this is just a partial list. You have more collections than I can even begin to comprehend. For example, what is your collection of one!? I don’t even know what object you could be talking about. Maybe it’s the piano or something.
Before this class, I had never really thought about how my relationship to objects is so dependent on your relationship to them. After all, what kid grows up in a house with collections of everything, in custom boxes or on custom shelves, out on display.
I don’t fully understand why you’re driven (or drawn) to collecting in the way that you do, but I have some reflections on how this has changed my interactions with objects, and how it has driven me to be more of the way that I am about objects.
Your collections are a lot about categories—categories that primarily reflect your interests, but also just reflect things that you think are cool, like neat glasses, the Simpsons and legos. A lot of your collections are about music, because that is what you first and foremost love.
We’ve talked in class about collections as a way of orienting ourselves in the world of stuff—and also about ways to have control over the stuff around us. Your collections are the ultimate control. They are all so well organized, and you know a lot of details about most of them (if not all). Many of your collections are also intended to inform you even more about your other collections, like your collection of books about guitars. That certainly grounds you in relationship to your collection of guitars.
I’ve ended up with a confused relationship about objects. Obviously, they are all that I think about, but at the same time there are many reasons ways in which I want to (and sometimes do) reject them to their core, as representations of our consumption. I love beautiful objects in form and in function. I am most interested in collecting things which serve a purpose.
When I was younger, my collections mirrored yours in a much more obvious way. My collections of 3” horses, of dollhouse furniture (including full sets of hand-made doll dishes), of lego castles, of playmobiles, of little figurines and whatever else I collected. Now, I’ve reduced my collections in a very different way—to things that are practical and useful in my life. I have a collection of clothes (include of hooded sweatshirts and of blazers), a collection of pyrex orange daisy bowls & serving dishes, a collection of mod salt and pepper shakers, and of course my collection of Heywood Wakefield furniture. I am looking for beauty and function, which is an exact reflection of what I look for in my design work as well. I don’t think I have the self awareness at this point in my life to determine how this type of collecting reflects on how I feel about myself in relation to this stuff—these are things that surround me, but I’m not sure they define me.
That’s another point. You and Mom have both been influential in selecting (or forcing?) things that define me…and I have likewise ended up defining you in the manner of things. Like that poster Julia made when she was little of “Things my Mommy likes”, part of your persona is defined by your love of Beatles things, and by your collection of musical figurines. And you’ve defined my persona partially by my collection of pineapples and pirates, which in reality is not a collection at all but an accumulation of objects presented to me by other people that ended up becoming a collection representing the interpretations of the people around me. I don’t see these things representing me that much—the pineapples, after all, started as joke—but they have come to define me by the collections that you’ve helped to create around me.
One particular thing we’ve been talking about in class is the way that collections become absorbed into museums. While you’re in the process of collection Kramer family history for the Kramer family museum, you’re also creating your own museum—a very particular documentation of the strange collection of popular culture and artifacts that appeal to you. I’m always impressed with your interests and with the care you take to preserve them—it will be quite the site for an archeologist to unearth years in the future.
Thanks for all your objects. I’ll write to you again about them as we keep going with this class.
Love,
Elizabeth
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)