‘I start with a laugh and work backwards from there
What do I need to to create this amount of laughter?’
– Bill Bailey
Reflections on
Thoughts on Ideas
Bill Bailey captured a truth on how we create the new, interpret fiction, and turn that fiction into a reality.
When a design challenge arises, the designer will usually make a leap to arrive at a visualisation of what the best possible design/ outcome will look like. For many, this is an impossible way of working and one that requires a structural and design thinking system in which design can be seen as a rational solving process (see the paradigm of design methodology, Herbert Simon, 1970’s) – or the design problem defined as the ‘ problem space’ that has to be surveyed in search of a design solution – a process and solution established by the Bahaus school through to the Design Councils Double Diamond and continually evolved by IDEO through their design thinking models and more recently condensed by Jake Knapp and Google Ventures into the Design Sprint (dynamic UX with de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats).
Moving beyond Archers ‘Systematic method for designers and the economic desire to create scientific rules and frameworks around creativity (see also Edward Bernays ‘Propaganda’) and into a more fluid model established by the Double Diamond, one has to ask are these models and others merely an attempt to fortify against failure? Does the simplistic (nee dystopian) wording of Discover, Define, Develop and Deliver create a valuable space that allows us to make the mistakes we need to make as designers and creatives in order to create a solution. Arguably they create a framework for problem-solving, but by defining design problems as “ill structured problems” that require a solution we then focus on using the systems above to tackle the immediate problem space, which is what modern commerce and culture demands. But what if the problems we are looking to solve in the immediacy are the wrong problems as the immediacy employs a servitude to current creative economic models. What happens if we look beyond the short term and think long term, do the models still hold up? How do we still make glorious mistakes and graze our knees and aspire to create ‘Cathedral thinking solutions’ (The Good Ancestor - Roman Krznaric)? Perhaps this is rooted in Daniel Kaufmann’s explorations of System 1 and System 2. Can our currents models be reworked to take into account how our cognitive systems actually work rather than relying on outdated methodologies and qualitative rationales (Design Councils – A qualitative way of describing the design process) resulting perhaps in a return to the ‘scientific model’ or an advancement of a ‘neurological model’ and moving beyond the cognitive, how do we integrate the emotion into design systems and processes. And does trauma and shame (Bessel van der Kolk – The Body keeps the Score / Abram Kardinar’s – The traumatic Neurosis of War) – have a role to play and how do we create space and understanding to integrate both the cognitive and emotional response systems. Empathy, yes, but is empathy, not just another learned framework? and if we rely on empathy to drive forward our models do we lose our intuitive approaches as designers?
Or perhaps the answer is somewhere in between, Sebastien Salgado, the celebrated photographer says that ‘Reality is full of depth of field’. He described filling his images with volumes of great and intricate details, that is the technical bit, It is what he then chooses to see, that then makes his work unique,
So is it a question of what we choose to see and find a practice/ framework that that is at once observational and the same time intuitive, and if yes, then does this require a new framework that moves beyond the current models and integrates more with the emerging ideas of who and what we are as humans and perhaps back to what the Bahaus understood, materiality, nature, colour, composition, words, image, story – combining to create a cognitive and emotional response. And if we acknowledge this as the starting point of what design process should strive for then maybe we can accept that design processes are just tools that can be reshaped and reworked as both our understanding of ourselves and our advancement of technology moves forward.
Further Thought:
When searching for the Higgs boson elementary particle, scientists explore ‘Supersymmetry’. Supersymmetry is often described as being too beautiful to be wrong. The theory suggests that every elementary type of particle we know of has a superpartner, which dances with it – and yet nature has hidden these beautiful exchanges from view. A question is if our cognitive and emotional response system and the idea of the ‘Self’ are a potential answer to the future of the design process will accessing this then provide us an insight into the ultimate design process, the ’Self’, and if yes then is the design process merely an obsolete tool (S-curve diagram) and should we as individuals and a collective start to rely on intuition (which is arguably too beautiful to be wrong) or as quoted by Einstein:
‘The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We live in a society that honours the servant and has forgotten the gift.’
Do improvise
Less push, More pause, Better results.
Robert Poynton, Associate Fellow of the Saïd Business School at the University of Oxford and designs and facilitates workshops, programs, retreats, and events. As is noted, many of his friends regard his entire career as one long pause.
Well, Robert teaches an acclaimed method to some of the worlds leading brands and companies based on improvisational skills that an actor would employ on stage or set. The idea is that our natural ability to improvise gets us through the unexpected and unplanned parts of our day and that this methodology can be honed and applied to work and life-embracing change as a natural process that places creativity and innovation at the core. So how does this relate to this week’s task of exploring different models of thinking?
When businesses talk about creativity, they normally talk about creative thinking, The improviser, by contrast, doesn’t have time for creative thinking, the focus is on creative doing. And what matters most is action, which is critical both to the improviser, and the business. Or another way to think is that creativity is psychical, not abstract, you can’t be creative by just thinking. So how can we translate this into a strategy? Want to visualise a new logo, get out and see what’s culturally relevant, sketch a rough, see how it fits in the real world, play around with it, get to know it.
This is what Bruno Munari achieved when he made the ‘Useless Machine’ and how he gave harmonic relationships to his shapes that in his friends’ eyes served no purpose but what manure had done was improvised and created a physical manifestation of an idea. Without the physical device, he would not have been able to understand the harmonic relationship he had created as it would have remained on a page or in his head. Or in other words, if you want to get creative, don’t just sit there and think about it, do something.
So to dive back into Ponytons improvisational strategy, he has developed a series of games that are designed to help the individual and companies become more productive without trying harder, overcome creative blocks and generate new ideas, respond fluently to circumstances beyond the control and inspire and motivate others…
When zooming on these expected results one is struck by the idea that the approach moves beyond the traditional design process and firmly starts to play into the idea of The Divided brain and how we can move into a space that allows us as designers to utilise different approaches to problem-solving.
Further Thought:
Recognise no boundaries – The idea of improvisation becomes an attractive methodology in that it democratises the design process and methods applied by removing what was identified by Hubert Dryufes in 2003 in which he points out that in solving identifying a problem as a problem it becomes reliant onto expertise of the problem solver. Improvisation allows anyone to become a problem solver releasing the expectation of boundaries set by the level of the designer/ user solving the problem. All of a sudden there are no boundaries to what you can see, what you can make, and how you can make it– which is the ultimate goal of the design process.
Perhaps this is what modern start-ups understand and why the most successful companies rarely rely on design strategies in the beginning and instead adhere to a Build, Launch, Deliver, Sustain and Grow way of thinking which fundamentally requires a level of improvisation.
Process
My starting point was to investigate traditional design processes with a focus on the Build, Launch, Deliver, Sustain and Grow way of thinking. I tried to visualise this through simple geometric forms and how these forms could be utilised dot create a visually interesting piece. Further to this, I got to thinking about the economic value of design systems/ processes and how beyond the human value of design systems, can a sustainable economic model be created for those that create new design systems and ways of thinkings. This led me to the idea of fractural ownership which is a technology track I'm working on currently utilising blockchain. Could the visual representation of the design process be considered as both a piece of art and a design system? And as a starting point could this piece of art be identified as an NFT (sic) that creates ownership for you over the 'idea' > stepping forward, this piece becomes a design system in the 'future' and you retain 'rights' through ownership of the NFT this creating an ongoing economic value for the work you've created and reducing the need for both expensive IP and copyrighting of the original idea – firmly putting the power of your 'idea' in the hands of the owner or the ‘Self’.
This identification of the “Self’ in all of this, and the idea that if we acknowledge that a framework of design processes can be both observational and the same time intuitive and utilise this as the starting point of what design process should be then maybe we can accept that design processes/ ideas are just tools that can be reshaped and reworked as both our understanding of ourselves and our advancement of technology moves forward. This led me to move beyond a mere graphical representation or line drawing and into a more abstract space. I had a Hilma AF Klint book sitting on the desk on her notes and methods that showcased the abstract yet geometric nature of the work and her interest in the invisible relationships that shape the world led me to see a parallel between her drawings and a more abstracted design system and representation of an idea that looks to take from Kaufmann's System 1 + Systems 2 and possible integration of Van der Kolks thoughts on trauma and the body.
Final outcome
Throughout the documentation of the process, I looked at how the language of design systems and ideas could be communicated in an abstract way. Based on the preliminary sketches above I found that the idea was too constrained by standard approaches to form (simple geometric shapes) and that a more fluid representation of process and idea would be more succinct in communicating my investigations into Kaufmann's System 1 + Systems 2 and possible integration of Van der kooks thoughts on trauma and the body and arrives at a form that could be viewed as the body and mind creating a new idea or system of interpretation.
Further Thought:
In addition, I wanted to take on board lessons from Munari and commit to exploring beyond the predictable and uninspired. Using a pencil which I continuously struggle with allowed me to create a framework (our system) in which to tap into the unconscious and moved beyond the limitations of the conscious mind. This also provided an opportunity to then explore the ‘Self’ and see what an emotional representation of an idea would look like on paper. one could argue was the ‘Self’ creating a ‘Design System’ to help bring forth the idea.
Further exploration
I was intrigued by the language and semiotics around idea generation and processes – it can be viewed as rather dystopian if you take a sense to it and it has analogies with how the advertising machine tries to sell to us, using language that resonates with our crave and business mindsets. I wanted to represent this in a simplistic and highly typographical way by taking elements of Barbara Kruger’s work and her influence on the seminal John Carpenter movie They Live’ and looking at modern typographic nuances (curving arms. bowls, ink traps, etc). The result is a typographic poster that recalls the direct call to action of WW2 propaganda posters (full circle?) by focusing on the wording of The Design Councils Double Diamond balanced against an Einstein quote…
Font: Futura Now Headline Condensed Black and Medium
The Wall
Feedback to Tove
I got to thinking about this visual again and the economic value of design systems/ processes (consider it a hangover of a historical legacy of the potato in Ireland) and how beyond the human value of design systems, can a sustainable economic model be created for those that create new design systems and ways of thinkings. This led me to the idea of fractural ownership which is a technology track I'm working on currently utilising blockchain. Take your piece as an example, could the piece be considered both a piece of art and a design system? And as a starting point could this piece of art be identified as an NFT (sic) that creates ownership for you over the 'idea' > stepping forward, this piece becomes a design system in the 'future' and you retain 'rights' through ownership of the NFT this creating an ongoing economic value for the work you've created and reducing the need for both expensive IP and copyrighting of the original idea – firmly putting the power of your 'idea' in the hands of the owner 'you'
Question to Christina on NLP
I'd like to understand more about how your sector utilises NLP within the context of design thinking considering the general consensus of NLP employing a pseudoscientific approach to communication, and that advances in the scientific understanding of neuroscience and linguistics have made it an almost redundant exercise.
Answer from Christina
I feel with all thinking models you've got to take it with a pinch of salt and pick out what most applies to you and what fits best for your learning style. Try not to be constrained by it. In terms of designing interpretation, I'd use the theory as a general tool to help think about how to engage with different audiences, how people process information. I heard of a great saying this week - When thinking about your audience you get The Streakers, The Strollers, and The Studiers. People who like to whizz past and just catch the headlines, people who like to stroll through and pick up some information along the way, and some people who like to really study and read every detail. It's quite a sweet way of grouping audiences rather than thinking 'this is for kids' or 'this is for older people. So in design, i.e. a publication or information board whatever, it's important to think about that hierarchy of information. What design thinking models do you use Keith?
Reflection
Last week I reflected upon finding an area you're interested in (critical theory/ psychoanalysis/ education) and apply design practice to open them out in ways not considered before.
I feel this week that seed has taking place and the route is opening up in how I can look at design education or a no school manifesto and explore critical theory, Jungian thought, and design approaches in establishing a framework to build my MA out on. Or in other words, the process of investigating the idea and systems has in of itself allowed me to start developing my own approach and system from which to work from and maybe this is the ultimate aim of all these processes, that you take what you need and adapt it in a way that solves your problem at that moment in time.
A further take out learned this week on proposing a final solution was to commit to exploring both a lifeless, boring thing in the words of Regular Practice (expected graphic design outputs??) and have fun and play and explore through mediums that my regular practice as a Creative Director wouldn’t generally allow the time for… in this week’s case, sketching using graphite pencils.