SOPHIE WALKER DESIGN BLOG

FINAL PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL

FINAL CREATIVE MANIFESTATION

I ended up using an elegant little jar as the glass vessel which contains all the bits of material/textures/colours, which visually and 3 dimensionally work together to communicate the key idea from my manifesto: the primary and secondary school system is teaching children and adolescents to suppress their creativity.

The vibrant colours/textures/materials squashed at the bottom of the jar represent creativity and imagination. The voluminous white fabric represents the school system pushing down and repressing it. 

Creative Manifestation Progress

Creative Manifestation Progress - Another prototype 

Creative Manifestation Progress - More prototypes

I m a g i n e  t h e  F u t u r e

In the transition from childhood to adulthood the value of imagination is lost and creativity is suppressed.

The school system teaches us that there is always a right and a wrong answer; that there is a right and wrong way to think; that there is a right and a wrong way to behave; that we will be rewarded for being right in life and punished for being wrong. This instills in us a hunger for right and a fear of wrong. Self-consciousness is taught.

Creativity does not operate according to right and wrong; it is not compatible with self-consciousness. Creativity is carefree; explorative; it is original. Creativity makes the world a more interesting place; progresses humankind; allows us to imagine the future.

The school system teaches us to be right; to be conventional; to be sensible; to be rational; to believe that being imaginative is childlike, and childlike is wrong. It teaches us that creativity is a thing only some people have; that creativity should be reserved for the arts; that creativity has limited purpose in the real world. The school system should teach us…  

1. Having imagination is not childlike. Having imagination is human.

2. Play is good for the soul. “A spontaneous, playful mindset is low in self-consciousness” ~ Zabelina & Robinson, 2010, p. 57

3. Creativity is yours. It has no blueprint.

4. Don’t be afraid to be wrong. “If you’re not prepared to be wrong you’ll never come up with anything original” ~ Robinson, 2006

5. Don’t be afraid to be right, either.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robinson, K. (2006). Do schools kill creativity?. Presentation, TED talk.

Robinson, K. (2001). Mind the gap: The creative conundrum. Critical Quarterly, 43(1), 41-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8705.00335

Sophie Walker RAP 10

The topic of designing companionship using artificial intelligence is a complex one which many people have strong opinions on. The Post-Human Manifesto for instance sees AI as “not revolutionary, but inevitable” (Posthuman.org, 1998). All lecture and reading material from this week pinpointed a “crisis in authenticity” that only seems to be growing as technology advances. This crisis forces us to question what it means to be human (Turkle, 2007, p. 502).

From my point of view to be human is to create meaningful relationships with one another of which love and trust are paramount. This is not to say that other animals cannot love and trust, but humans do so in a unique way. To reference my first RAP – I value people. My goal as a designer is to make a positive difference in people(s) lives. Therefore for me the key question is: can machines make a positive difference in peoples lives by conforming to be like us?  

To a certain extent yes, machines can make a positive difference in peoples lives by displaying human-like qualities. The furbie is a prime example (Turkle, 2007, p. 503). But my personal belief is that machines can never be substitutes for real human interaction. Some research suggests that in certain situations people may feel more comfortable with a robot than another person, such as meeting with a psychotherapist (Turkle, 2007, p. 502). In this case they “did not care if their life narratives were really understood. The act of telling them created meaning on it’s own” (Turkle, 2007, p. 502-503). However I think that this scenario is rare.

In most instances humans desire reciprocation (Turkle, 2007, p. 505) and always will. It can be argued that machines can reciprocate, but only at a superficial level. They cannot feel emotions or think freely which disables them from truly loving and trusting. I want to make peoples lives better, but I do not believe that designing human-replica robots can achieve this.

Posthuman.org,. (1998). The Post-Human Movement. Retrieved 2 October 2015, from http://www.posthuman.org/page2.html

Sophie Walker RAP 9

Nature-Design has a dual meaning. One: human interference with the environment. Two: nature-inspired design. This demonstrates that humankind is both infatuated with nature and obsessed with destroying it (Sachs, 2007).

I am used to hearing about sustainable and eco-friendly design in the media. However the discussion this week has prompted me to self-reflexively consider the topic – my attitude to the environment as a soon-to-be design graduate. The fact is that the design industry is a massive contributor to the demise of this planet. This is fact. As Allan Chochinov says, “we’re in the consequence business” (2007). Whilst I think most of us young designers realize this, we do not want to know our own part in it. This is because we currently don’t really have the power to change the big things, the things that could make a difference. The nature of business predicts that most of the people graduating from my class will have a small role in a company as their first job. The small guy doesn’t call the shots.

However I do believe that if today my class learns to follow certain codes of practice, starting by stopping making crap (Chochinov 2007), that by the time we become the big guy we can improve the future of design and minimise the harm we are inflicting on nature. The negative effects on nature “are the consequence of out-dated and unintelligent design” (McDonough & Braungart, 2002). In order to stop making crap we must always consider context. Who and where are we designing for is key (Chochinov, 2007).

Chochinov, A. (2007). 1000 Words: A Manifesto for Sustainability in Design.

McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2002). A Question Of Design. In W. McDonough & M. Braungart, Cradle to cradle: Remaking the way we make things. New York: North Point Press.

I M A G I N E  T H E  F U T U R E

In the transition from childhood to adulthood the value of imagination is lost and creativity is suppressed.

The school system teaches us that there is always a right and a wrong answer; that there is a right and wrong way to think; that there is a right and a wrong way to behave; that we will be rewarded for being right in life and punished for being wrong. This instills in us a hunger for right and a fear of wrong. Self-consciousness is taught.

Creativity does not operate according to right and wrong; it is not compatible with self-consciousness. Creativity is carefree; explorative; it is original. Creativity makes the world a more interesting place; progresses humankind; allows us to imagine the future.

The school system teaches us to be right; to be conventional; to be sensible; to be rational; to believe that being imaginative is childlike, and childlike is wrong. It teaches us that creativity is a thing only some people have; that creativity should be reserved for the arts; that creativity has limited purpose in the real world.

The school system should teach us…  

1. Having imagination is not childlike. Having imagination is human.

2. Play is good for the soul. “A spontaneous, playful mindset is low in self-consciousness” ~ Zabelina & Robinson, 2010, p. 57

3. Creativity is yours. It has no blueprint.

4. Don’t be afraid to be wrong. “If you’re not prepared to be wrong you’ll never come up with anything original” ~ Robinson, 2006

5. Don’t be afraid to be right, either.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robinson, K. (2006). Do schools kill creativity?. Presentation, TED talk.

Robinson, K. (2001). Mind the gap: The creative conundrum. Critical Quarterly, 43(1), 41-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8705.00335

Consumer culture + identity

New thesis statement: There is a way to live in a consumer culture society creatively and freely and it is a self-directed design practice called creative consumption (Cherrier, 2008, p. 187). The concept of creative consumption does not separate the two ideas (creativity from consumption) because it recognises that money is a resource that none of us can avoid involvement with in the modern world (Diener, Ng, Harter & Arora, 2010, p. 59). Everybody is a consumer. However consumption can be used as a tool of personal expression for instrinsic gain, and when treated in this regard everybody is also a designer.