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.