Manifesto Lounge

The Analysis (see full analysis):
We have chosen 12 manifestos (and some alternates) to incorporate for this project:

They are:
(1909) The Founding and Manifesto of Futurism, F.T. Marinetti // (1921) DADA, Tristan Tzara // (1919) Bauhaus Manifesto, Walter Gropius // (1923) The New Typography, László Moholy-Nagy // (1961) Grid Systems in Graphic Design, Joseph Muller-Brockmann // (1964) First Things First, Ken Garland // (1987) Ten Rules of Good Design, Dieter Rams // (1991) The Social Role of the Graphic Designer, Pierre Bernard // (2000) First Things First // (2000) Incomplete Manifesto (Bruce Mau) // (2008) White Night Before A Manifesto, Metahaven // (2009) The Awesomeness Manifesto, Umair Haque

Alternates / Additions:
(2001) Designers Against Monoculture, Noah Scalin // (2006) Free Font Manifesto, Ellen Lupton

– Reviewed a number of arbitrary (or not) editing processes: first 100 words, every 10th word, selected paragraphs, action words

—————————————————————————————————

The Installation:
– Will be immersive / dimensional / not restricted to walls
– Will include the FIRST 100 WORDS from each of the selected manifestos
– Will highlight ACTION words
– Will be paired according to content, not chronology (example: Futurist (1903) and Social Role of the Graphic Designer (1991)
– Will be laser cut from cardboard of different thicknesses, dimensions and colors (red, black and brown)
– Will have a manifesto manuscript with all manifestos in their entirety.
– Will have lounging area; couch with “manifesto pillows” that you can hug or punch.

—————————————————————————————————

The Input:
–Will have OUR questions at input station to help frame the thinking / discussion (critical, preparatory, highlighting connection, examination) Some examples:

As a community of graphic designers, to what extent do we identify with or are influenced by the public declarations of the past? //  Are these documents proof of our accomplishments, or reminders of our follies? //  Manifestos can be powerful public declarations of the purpose, principles, or plans of action of a group or individual. Over time, the language has become less forceful and galvanizing. As a community, should designers consider reviving the power of the document through more forceful language and individual signatures? //  What does it mean to appreciate the power of the rhetoric of authenticity in our design practices and should we make a public declaration of our ideals, galvanizing our group?

–Will use words and phrases inspired by the language of the manifesto / installation content (both active and passive) to introduce the submision. for example: Come my friends! Let us Go! (We collaborate…) // Let us feed the unknown. (I conceive…)

– Will be signed and projected (and/or maybe printed and affixed to the wallspace)

We look forward to your feedback. love, tania, brooke, ryan and rebecca.

Manifesto Destiny

What is the love affair that design has with the ideological declaration? What is it about design (and art) that spawns these impassioned, strong manifestos? And how do we understand manifestos (or public declarations in general) as tools for shaping our field? Are they merely self-indulgent or are they important galvanizing tools? Or possibly both?

Looking back at the history and scope of these ideological declarations can be an important way to frame a contemporary discourse in graphic design. Where are we going? What do we expect from the field? From ourselves? Design as a community depends on a strong historical consciousness—not as a lens into which to view something separate from our current condition, but as a method for interpreting and molding our contemporary ideals. A rejection of the past is not necessary to move forward. But a historical glance back in design history might have us believe otherwise. The Futurists embrace of all things machine-like was a clear rejection of the craft movement. The same could be said of the Bauhaus. More recently the First Things First Manifeso (2000) was a rejection of the trajectory that a few, well-connected and prominent designers felt necessary to take a stand against. How much did that change our field? And, 10 years late, is it still relevant? Which also begs the question, is the power of manifesto in its impassioned rejections of some sort?

This is obviously more questions that answers. I’m writing it to accomplish two goals. (1) Consider how we might set up the context under which we’re asking people to engage in this discourse and (2) to consider my own critical perspective, which I will try to outline more clearly below:

(1) I think an examination of the context under which manifestos/ideological declarations are written is an important lens through which to look at these documents, and consider their impact. The Bruce Mau example is a good one.

(2) I think an examination (evaluation) of how historical manifestos have shaped each other and our current field is interesting and important (where can we see common thoughts between very different ideologies)

(3) I think manifestos—written by groups and as an attempt to shape the field less than express a personal ideology—are more important for the community in which we practice and live (so, First Things First vs Bruce Mau)

NCSU Graduate Syposium, 2010

The NC State Graduate Symposium planning is well under way and I’m excited about the topic and the contributions. We got 20+ proposals, which is H-U-G-E and I think speaks to the interest and relevance of the topic. Below is the abstract and visuals. I’m on the design team and I’m really excited for what has been produced. We’ve all sort of had a hand in it and I think it’s been a really honestly collaborative (i’m saying it and sticking to it) experience.

Deadline Extended Until 11/06/09:

The NC State Master of Graphic Design Candidates are in the process of planning a graduate symposium and we want to hear what you have to say.

The time: January 22–23, 2010

The place: College of Design at North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina

The topic: the rhetoric of authenticity within design practices and for community experience

We invite you to submit your works in progress, your conversation starters, your ideas in formation, your past works and your ongoing investigations—pretty much anything that is relevant and will add value to the conversation (or start a debate!).

This symposium is for current and recent graduate students, so bring the discussions you are having in your studios, classrooms, and blogs. We want to know what you’re thinking and talking about. This is an opportunity for those of us who are engaged in the graduate experience to have an open conversation—to get together in the same room and talk about what matters to us.

Design anthropologist Dori Tunstall describes five requisites of communities: commonality in terms of historic consciousness, life goals, organizational structures, relationships, and conceptions of individual agency. Can considering how the rhetoric of authenticity relates to these defining characteristics of communities help identify points of engagement with complex and discriminating audiences?

This symposium will explore the rhetoric of authenticity within design practices and for community experience. We will confront provocative issues relating to designers’ roles and responsibilities to communities and the individuals who comprise them. Join us in this dialogue.

How can we anticipate the ways in which our designs will be read by community members?

How can we design to empower community audiences in ways that increase their agency and nurture their identities?

What does it mean to appreciate the power of the rhetoric of authenticity in our design practices and considerations of community?

How might social, political, and economic constructs influence perceptions of authenticity in design?

What constitutes authentic experience, relative to design?

Coming soon: additional information and our official symposium website.

Brought to you by Grad Students: Brooke Chornyak, Cady Bean-Smith, Caroline Maxcy Prietz, Dan McCafferty, Kelly Bailey, Lauren Waugh, Liese Zahabi, Lincoln Hancock, Rebecca Knowe, Ryan Gottfried, Samyul Kim, Sidney Fritts, Tania Allen, TJ Blanchflower, Tony Fugolo, Gary Dickson, David Raymond, and Laura Rodriguez. Plus Denise Gonzales Crisp, Graduate Symposium Advisor; Meredith Davis, Director of the MGD Graduate Program; and Santiago Piedrafita, Head, Graphic Design and Industrial Design Department.

———————————————————————————————————————–

Interpreting Authenticity, Round 2

This project is twofold: (1) to explore how to encourage honesty and spontaneity in answering a question about perception of an idea and (2) explore visualizing these patterns of understanding and interpretation through geography, age and possibly over time.

Part 1: Answering the Question
If I want participants to write their own answers, how can I encourage them to answer honestly (and maybe even a bit spontaneously). I could still ask them to answer verbally, but that would entail an interpretation and creation of something curated on my part after the fact – still not sure which way I want to go. Below are my thoughts so far.

1. The questions should be simple and ‘lead’ them to a first thought.

2. Maybe the participants can’t see (at least initially) other’s responses.

Example:

When I say: America, You think …
Other possible ‘lead in’ words: authentic, community, equality, segregate, welfare, safety, right,

At this point, I’m thinking there would only be ONE at a time and it would be delivered in the same way, so that the conditions under which everyone is answering is the same.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Part 2: The Visualization

So, this is the hard part. I’m still struggling with whether or not I want participants to ‘build’ their answers into some tangible form on their own that might involve my ‘hand’ in making some connections or showing some patterns. Or if this is about collecting and interpreting data as two distinctly independent activities.

(2a) Visualizing an entirely interpreted/curated set of data. In this version, a suggestive map of the US (and I know I need to include some space for outside of the US (like Canada, Hello!) is used as a backdrop, with voices and words on top. I haven’t figured out all of the logic for the hierarchy. Except for the really big words, which would be the word (or words) that show up most frequently in the responses. This is clearly speculative and even stereotypical without real content…

And then I might think about imposing additional information that speaks to this topic, but is not gathered from participants, such as (and this information is real – though not accurate : )

Other possible information: immigrants by geographic location, amount of state budget that goes to social programs, average household income, etc. This is obviously going to take on an entirely different meaning when juxtaposed against answers from a basically white, upper-middle class, liberally progressive group like I’m imaging would be at the Symposium, versus a wider ‘swath’ but could still be interesting as more ‘outside’ of the Symposium “norm”.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

(2b) Augmenting, intepreting uncurated submissions. Still interpreting the data, but allowing participants to submit to a physical ‘record’ of perceptions (ala a thought bubble wall – yes, there will be thought bubbles…no, there won’t) – so, answers would be submitted on a piece of hard paper (thin plastic or some other material like that) that is rolled up in a tube and stuck to the wall to an appropriate geographic area.

and added to it could be a projection of some other information as included above:

that’s where things are at – I’d appreciate thoughts on which overall direction seems like it has most potential. I am obviously still thinking of this as being introduced in some sort of contained way – at Symposium, an event of sorts, within an exhibition space, etc.

Interpreting Authenticity

For Project #3, we are to find some place where our thesis topic intersects with our Symposium topic. So, my thesis topic (researchable question) currently is:

How can design contextualize historical events in public memory spaces, encouraging multiple interpretations of a single event, and the means for visitors to engage in content creation?

The Proposal:

Ask participants to respond to an idea, term or question in some way.

Possibilities:
Answer a question (simple vs. complex)?
When I say [welfare] you think of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

An important consideration: Verbalization of a response seems more ‘honest’ and spontaneous – how can you account for that spontaneity of the verbal in a written form?

-and-

how might you organize the results (or prompt some sort of organization or patterning of the results)

And material considerations:
Tactile, dimesional, understandable, easily manipulated. Q: everyday object seen in new way?

Incentive is in adding to the physical as much as the idea.

To be continued…

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Visual Conventions

What do we mean by visual conventions? Who and how are they made, and how do we, as designers introduce, adopt, modify, elevate, privilege certain conventions? And more importantly, how do we create new models that might be used and embraced by audiences and communities?

In their book, Shaping Information, Charles Kostelnick and Michael Hassett illuminate this space that we, as designers, fill by using common conventions to communicate certain ideas while at the same time reacting against those conventions. The idea that a good designer must be introducing new conventions and not just replicating existing ones is something I think that we all react to as a common charge.

And the key (presumably) is to create more than an amalgam—not just to layer existing conventions on top of one another, but to intertwine them in such as way as to create NEW meaning that offers more depth, ‘realness’, dare I say authenticity to the process. So, I guess the big question is how to do that. I think that we often do it by looking within design. By seeing what other designers are doing, rather than what other disciplines might be doing. We pick and choose those elements that resonate with us, as designers, and attempt to use those in different ways.

But I think this is becoming a tired approach. It is one that I have used and continue to use. But, it seems there is a point at which you are not really initiating anything new into the process or the outcome. So, onward and upward at this point.

The last project exploration in studio was an attempt to ‘initiate’ a defined community (in my case, competitive cyclists) into some new way of thinking, behaving, etc. I chose to initiate them into a more vocal dialogue around street improvements in Raleigh. I did this through a series of street signs placed along training routes. These would highlight the crappiness of the street and the potential to have a say in improving it—directing them to more information on an existing document, The Raleigh Bike Plan, and a public forum that they set up to elicit community input.

Over time, more and more of the information from the actual Bike Plan would be included on the sign, as a way to inform  (literally) but also to encourage a re-look, or maybe a first look. Was some new visual language created? I’m not sure. But, the charge to do more than just replicate an existing system was really at the core of this investigation. For me, it was much less about the strategy and even the ‘substrate’ (I hate that term) as it was the attempt to inform a new visualization.

I think in the end, one of the points that needs more exploration is this idea of hybridization vs. amalgamation. Using the streetsign and the idea of “universal” design became and element in the design, rather than something new. Rather, how could I use elements of that, and really combine them with alternate ideas to create something new. Is that even possible? Are we are a point in design where we can’t even do that? Where everything has been done before and we are simply re-initiating trends that are looking back more than forward? Maybe we can re-imagine but not really invent (which seems like quite a lofty and daunting goal anyway.)

Did I just go around in a huge circle?

Masters in Graphic Design :: NCState :: Fall 2009

I am a (now) 2nd year graduate student in graphic design at NC state. Aside from deciding on our thesis, this semester the topic of conversation, debate, general mindswarm is on community—how we define community, and more importantly, how you might begin to think about designing for (or with) community. I’m not sure what it means yet, but I’m sure I will have a crystal clear philosopy in just about a week or so.