Among other things

I have been invited to speak and lead a workshop at the Design Thinking Symposium, November 18th and 19th in Singapore. I will be giving a talk on design across communities and leading a workshop on designing the future library.

Click the image for more details and see the following links

http://www.designthinking.sg/

http://golibrary.nlb.gov.sg/Event.aspx?EventID=30576

CORE COLL: Urban Interventions PUIC 2000 Faculty: Ben Katchor and Jim Osman

This course looks great! Check out the links for each instructor and you'll see that these two are already acclaimed artists from very different fields. Ben and Jim made some great comments in their presentation this may be my favorite "In order to conceive what a city should be you must understand what it was." The site for this course is Union Square and the goal is to "allow students to envision a different Union Square" that supports the progressive, public, and activitist history that the square has enjoyed since its inception. Students will be looking at key elements that 'make' in the square such as scales, signage, and foliage to uncover what gives it its power and prominence. I sense a distinct activist angle here and any students who want to learn about the role of the artist in creating the city should definitely check this course out!

CORE COLL: Next_F Studio PUIC 2000 Faculty: Lara Penin (scroll down to see bio)

An amazing course and a really amazing opportunity to do work on a challenging project that deserves the attention of caring and creative thinkers (hint: YOU). Did you know that 1 out of every 100 Americans are incarcerated? ... Neither did I until I heard Lara Penin and Savitra Lopez talk about the Next_F studio. This course has been developed in close partnership with the Fortune Society, an NFP devoted to helping previously incarcerated individuals re-enter society in a way that allows them to thrive and avoid the all too common pitfalls of the 'ex-con'. The primary assets of this course are a focus on three critical areas of the growing SDS culture; Service Design Social Innovation Design with not Design for Just watch the video (coming soon) and I think you'll see my point.

CORE COLL: Smart Cities PUIC 2000 Faculty: Ivan Kucina It should be abundantly clear at this point that we have an incredibly rich faculty at The New School. SDS is particularly diverse and I am so excited to be part of this group. It is a real honor. Ivan is a visiting scholar from the faculty of architecture at the University of Belgrade and lives up to the claim. His course this term will investigate the problem of 'the border'. What border you ask? ... All borders. From the velvet rope that keeps the club cool (even when it doesn't) to the invisible wall that separates Mexico and the United States. Perhaps more locally... where is the border between Chelsea and the West Village? ... and why do we even bother to look for it?! Seriously, this is a great course for anyone who wants to investigate the design and impact of separation. Some key points from Ivan's intro; What is a border - politically, physically, socially, and organizationally? What are the critical problems of 'urban borders'? How can we address the 'balkanization' of Manhattan? How can we better understand the border implications of our design practices?

I hope that this small report helps spread the word about this small sample of the great courses happening at Parsons this term. Check back in regularly for other updates about events and ideas. Most importantly - get involved - write for the blog - go to other classes and share your thoughts!

See you in class,
Scott

  On the "stakeholder panel" was Sanjit (Bunker) Roy, founder of the Barefoot College in Tilonia, India, Bruce Nussbaum, Associate Editor of Business Week, and Dr. Vishakha Desai who is the current president of the Asia Society.  All were introduced as "non-designers" who represented concerns that somehow reflected the concerns for Design as it relates to India.  The moderator of the panel was Mary McBride, chair of the Design Management Graduate Program at Pratt and the keynote speaker was Neelam Deo, Consul General of India, who delivered an opening statement on the importance of collaboration with the global community in innovation, business, and (of course) design.  See the Design With India website for more information on the panelists and the "resource orchestra", which was a group of design professionals from around the world representing a broad variety of disciplines.

Although I felt that there were many interesting and valid ideas offered, there was neither coordination of values nor of meanings with reference to Design.  Some advocated for a kind of Design only relevant to the people of rural India, others queried the opportunities for business collaboration with "Design" as the meeting point, still others were advocating for the India that looms large in the various technology industries... still Design but with a very different flavor.

There were so many interesting people in attendance who came to share their views and there just wasn't time for all of them to speak in one massive session and threads of discussion didn't last long enough to dig very deeply.  This is common, of course, at an event with a high profile, but the billing of the event as a 'strategy session' seemed to imply some breakdown of the audience into smaller components.  I had in mind that I'd be part of a breakout group around some topic at least part of the time.  This unfortunately didn't happen in favor of the "10,000 foot" statements that kept the conversation spiraling outward.  [I hope that some documentation of these ideas will be published.]

As I listened to comments about sustainability, technology, culture, architecture, engineering, products, markets, and needs some chose "design for India" and others chose "design in India" but it was clarified in the course of discussion that what is important is
a kind of participatory design that included anyone who wants it, and
that incorporates all of the values that signify India.  Design WITH India.

I thought... "what does it mean to design with an
entire country?  For that matter, what does it mean to design with a
culture?" I ask with reference, not only to India (or rather the people of India), but what of America?  Can we design with America?  Is it even possible to incorporate the values, the goals, and perhaps most importantly the identity of so many with so much difference between them?

When the opportunity to ask questions was offered to the general audience I asked...



"What are we talking about when we say 'Design'?"  (my comment/question was longer... but that's the gist)

• Consul General Deo defined Design as "Art, plus
  culture, plus commerce" in her keynote address.  Assuming that there is
  some universal notion of what THOSE three terms mean (which I don't
  believe there is), their intersection does not necessarily imply Design
  and furthermore, the equation doesn't really help us understand the
  particularity of Design WITH/IN/FOR India.  The comments of other
  members of the audience made it clear that we all didn't have the same
  idea of culture, art, or commerce either.
  
  

• Bruce Nussbaum took the question head on, qualifying Design as
  the output of more general "Design Methods" , which, according to
  Nussbaum, can play the same role in business that it plays in fashion,
  architecture, and product design.  Nussbaum's description seemed to
  suggested a kind of generalization across disciplines that could help
  professionals find accord. 

As the event continued at least one thing became clear; design with India is going to be complicated. 
The country has incredibly disparate economic, cultural, social, and
physical characteristics.  So disparate, I think, that we can only design with part of India at a time and hope that we'll be conscious of, and careful with, the rest as we do so.

powered by performancing firefox

I found this while trying to find some references on the history of the blackboard. At this year's CHI Conference, Bill Buxton and I were speaking about the importance of the blackboard and its history. He seemed convinced that it was the single most important contribution to the design of classrooms and the generation of the architectural type that we call a "classroom" today.

So what is so important about the blackboard?

great point... scale in digital media

the unregarded art... ornament has always been background

red dot on the prada shoe

social aesthetic vs. formal aesthetic

'greg lynn... "i am an art neauvou architect" ' - (i say blech!)

we have the pleasure but I am not sure we have the aesthetic yet

pacific design center-

the narrowing of the field of design causes an upwelling of ornamnet sometimes? ...what happens indeed!

Mark Goulthorpe says that he approaches formism... not formalism.

Mark Jarzombeck says that as amiable as that ambition may seem, it is still a dialectic and therefore the voice of the designer cannot be ignored.

... after some discussion of Derrida, Dialectics, and the question of Ornament... Professor Jarzombeck raised the issue of ornament as an act of violence...( previously he intertjected a point about the fact that he would rather be the criminal than the victim!!)... AWESOME

[ correction: Mark Jarzombek actually said "I'd rather be the criminal than the policeman, meaning something like I'd rather be in favor of ornament than structure..... But actually want to get rid of both.."]


great point... in what way can ornament become an act of violence : Jarzombeck

using the agency of the computer to involve them in the process

digital tooling vs. craft

lost the connection... one second you are part of the world... the next.. you are all alone :(

.... .... ....

ahhh back in the world...

.... .... ....

unpredictable situations huh... (Antoine Picon)... the ornament is full of surprise.

Joe MacDonald... troubled by the aliatory... removal of the author... irresponsible... even useless! Whoa.



(My opinion is that this suggests that algorithm is not authored)... and i completely disagree


now they are discussing unpredictability... great addition to the discussion... if they are are planning on bringing it back to the question of ornament?

M.Jarzombek: "I want to live in a world where the dialectical project still haunts us. [But at that moment, we need to address the notion of object... more specifically, the crisis of the object.]"

A.Picon: "[But] how does what we do [as architects] get interpreted by society."

J.MacDonald:"It is ultimately by the reception of form that it is proven."

...

so after structure, the object, and structure... we have landed at the profession...

conflation between disciplines - between professions?

- i don't know if it is problematic but I would wonder whether the other fields think the same?