According to Dino Dini

According to video game developer Dino Dini in a talk given at the 2005 game design and technology workshop held in Liverpool JM university, design underpins every form of creation from objects such as chairs to the way we plan and execute our lives. For this reason it is useful to seek out some common structure that can be applied to any kind of design, whether this be for video games, consumer products or one's own personal life.

For such an important concept, the question "what is design?" appears to yield answers with limited usefulness. Therefore the design process can be defined as "the management of constraints"; I think there are 2 kinds of constraints, negotiable and the non-negotiable. The first step in the design process is the identification, classification and selection of constraints. The process of design then proceeds from here by manipulating design variables so as to satisfy the non-negotiable constraints and optimising those which are negotiable.

Questions concerning design

I think there are 3 main concerns when it comes to evolving a design theory in conceptual stages. It comes down to questioning the fundamental assumptions behind designing something innovative, therefore allowing the opportunity to creativly explore not only evolving theories but culture, new concepts and historical ideas that all contribute to the field of contemporary design.
This should be applied to design objects and environments, both real and virtual, within a critical and theoretical framework.

1)Paradigms and their cultural contexts;
*How do paradigms relate to the place of design in the articulation of culture?
*In what ways can design express itself as a negotiation between people and their surrondings?
*How can we creatively respond to the ethical implications and possibilities of design in relation to its situation within particular environments.

2)Structure of communicative space;
*What is the "eventfulness" of design?
*To what degree is the meaning of a design dependent upon the context that it is situated within?
*To what degree is the meaning of a design dependant on the occasion it comes into being?
*How can we rigorously explore the poetic and the technological in design as a unity?

3)Representation and design processes;
*What are some of the present conflicts/tensions between symbolic and instrumental representation, and how do we deal with these in our creative processes?
*How can we best unfold and cultivate the relationship between our representations and our more poetic meanings?
*What are the varying possibilities, conditions, and limits of mathematical, virtual and simulated representations?
*What is the role of the body, scale and ergonomics in our design processes and in the representation of our design ideas?
*How can we best apply our creative problem-solving skills with equal rigour to abstract and concrete processes?

Hate for photography

Yes the title says that, and i realise that i use photos to show my ideas. I feel like i lose a part of my soul with each photo i chuck up. A photo is the death of a moment, its that moment as it was then. By taking a photo you are simply showing a clip of the atmosphere, which is no longer around. Its reminscient of a joke that fails to be funny when repeated. In my defence i am trying to use photography as an applied solution rather than novelty, like everyone with a digital camera.


I also think you have too much control over the manipulation of a photo, wait .. what am i saying. Lets turn this post into how to become a professional photographer. Firstly buy a digital camera, you are now halfway to becoming a professional, alongside everyone who owns a camera or cellphone. Make sure you have light in your photo, othwerise photoshop helps. I will also put up a few photos, dont feel discouraged i am very artsy and professional because i have a digital camera.






Mindless bitching aside, Current display processed images create too many exaggerated opportunities to create less clinical reproductions of reality, further enabling the introduction of midly artistic elements such as vintage or contrast to be available to more of the public. The availability of this technology has resulted in vivid abuse and over-use resulting in a tsunami of soulless sub - par images in such a commercial manner. The internet seems to be flooded with photo technology porn.

Memorial qualifications

This chain of thoughts is more of a continuation of a previous post dealing with questioning the fundamental assumptions with funerals. Link is just below for those who missed it or care.

http://republicofcolour.blogspot.com/2010/05/thoughts-on-death.html

Was looking over Vietnam veteran's memorials and inadvertently produced a new orthodoxy, which i feel could potentially raise a fair amount of debate or even consideration. When a new language of commemoration is produced with regards to a war memorial ( or for that fact any memorial in general ), the challenge realisticly lies in invisioning a language that can speak through abstraction without depoliticizing the situation or the site. I feel that the communicative power that a tribute must have is the issue, and more importantly not just for those who have established an emotional attachment by experiencing a trauma or loss first - hand. It needs to be orchestrated for generations to come, for whom the event will be remote.

Consider this, when the veterans of Vietnam are no longer around or the families of its victims, will the memorial maintain its power? What can a memorial do for the other generations.

The centre within structure

It is beyond comphrension to concieve of an unorganized structure, subconsciously or not we always orientate ourselves around a point of refrence, or a centre. The responsibility of a centre is to organize and balance a structure, by orienting the coherence of the systems and elements within its total form. The suggestion of a structure devoid of any centre is simply unthinkable. It physically, metaphorically or even emotionally cannot work.

By following this system of thinking however we end up with a catch - 22. By agreeing with this statement we situate that the centre is at the centre of the totality (which is a fact), however since the centre does not belong to the structure, as it is not part of the structure, the totality therefore has its centre somewhere else.

Its an intresting thought that the centre is not the centre.

Thoughts about critiqing design

Went to sleep with a dream last night , and woke up with a purpose. Ended up having yet another frustrating night on Photoshop yesterday, it just dosent want to be my friend, which is fine because im not a fan of it either, or come to think about it digital art. Yes i am hypocritical so let me explain, it becomes more of a last resort. There is no antiquity to them, its like the difference of going to the movies and going to the theatre. The pictures will always play the movie the same way, its always going to be the same, routined , predictible and if all else fails you can always get your hands on a copy of it to keep to watch whenever and especially these days where ever. The theatre on the other hand is all about the spirit of now, getting lost in the moment and there is a certin timelessness ( if that is indeed a word ) to it, also you will never see the same theatre performance again, more importanly you could never recreate the irreplacable atmosphere. This makes it very temporary, against movies which would easily outlive any apocalypse we enter in our brief existance. Once the show is over it merely makes you think

"This day will never come again , so let me keep this moment"

..and perhaps thats what makes me so sad about today's society, with the internet you can become a celebrity overnight and lose it in seconds. More so with design, and even art to a degree has become so.. cheap and commercialized. I went to an exhibit the other week, i wont say what one as it does not matter, was all digital images and to the so - called artists credit i was impressed with how beautiful the images appeared to be. I overheard someone attempt to critique the students work ( yes it was a student's exhibition ) and realised how very easy it is for designers to not confront criticism by inferring that the critic was interpreting its aims and purpose wrongly.

I for one want to be able to orchestrate my own thoughts about work without being told that my criticism is born from "not getting it" where as at the same time the creator ( god forbid ) auctually fails to make a point with their work. I was always under the impression that art is not what you see, but what you make others see, and aparently i am wrong. I will however say this to the design student whom if they ever descended down upon us mere mortals who do not comphrend the finer points of "art". Every point of a view is useful, even those that are wrong.. if you can judge why a wrong view was accepted.

And you know what , all the work was based around gestures and comments towards politicial policy, wierd scientific theories and even a very ambitious ill-informed view on the design world itself. Maybe Political journalists and scientists should be in a better position to critique the work, however as this was experienced in a gallery ( which is a huge understatement ) they will never get to see it.

What i am trying to highlight with my poorly constructed bitch here is that design, or even technology for that matter is not a straight line, there are several other ways that all eventually end up at the same end. By accepting "one" path simply blinds you to alternatives. You know what , for people that care i will pose a question. If art , design , animation, technology or even architecture is to speak, what language does it use?