Dissertation Proposal

[Below is my dissertation proposal for my Ba in Illustration and Visual Media (Hons). It is formatted for the proposal itself, hence the 3 subheadings. I wanted to put it on here for archival reasons and for potential peer review.]

How Open Source culture affects contemporary design practice

Rationale

I aim to address a number of issues regarding Open Source culture. First of all I want to look at the implicit pros and cons of open sourcing designs or objects. I would like to look at a number of case studies throughout the dissertation, open source and not, and compare the development timelines of the two and their respective final outcomes – which was more efficient/profitable/useful/ethical/etc.? These examples would be examined in varying detail as and when I want to look at particular areas, for example; I would like to examine the role of the designer in the case studies. How did the role differ and if so, how did that affect the designer? Did he or she, in either case, operate in different ways, or have to make particular sacrifices? Or did either have any notable gains? Next I would like to look at how a designer would approach the design process. An ‘open source designer’ would have new tools to design with, such as feedback loops, conversation between author and user and so on. This may lead to definitions of an idea of ‘new design’ methods which could then be compared to ‘old design’ methods. How compatible the two methods are, if at all, would then be a reasonable next step.

I would then like to look at developing a conceptual framework to the idea of open source. Exploring ideas of authorship and the inherent reluctancy of a regular person to share his or her prized invention. This would relate to the new role of the designer as I would look at how much agency the designer has in production.

Ultimately I want to examine the fundamental values of open source, and how that correlates with the human condition regarding authorship. Are the two truly compatible, if not, what are the elements which are crippling true growth of the open source culture.

Methodology

Initially I intend to find a selection of case studies, at most four. I want the selection to be varied but each one to contain an element of design or have a distinct designer. This will help me apply ideas of authorship to the case study as I can then examine how one designer’s role compares to another. The case studies will ideally be a mix of large and small scale ventures which would then allow me to look at how each one sits in its given society and culture, depending on its location. We-Think by Charles Leadbeater and The Cult of the Amateur by Andrew Keen will provide me with many examples and also opposing views on the ideas of open source culture. Limited Language: Rewriting Design by Davies and Parrinder will give me many case studies which are more specific to design, also with a critical insight.

I will be looking at theorists such as Barthes, Foucault, Deleuze, Guattari to understand notions of authorship on a base level. I will then look at the work of Walter Benjamin, Ellen Lupton and Koi Vinh to put the theories into the context of design.

There are many current debates regarding open source culture. Two great resources will be Open-Source.Alltop.com and Slashdot.com which both frequently publish articles on up-to-date examples of open source ventures which are in some way making an impact on society. The nature of open source culture will allow my access to read and talk in contributing and active open source circles, but I will have to make sure to maintain a unbiased perspective.

Literature Review

Any object one buys or uses has been built and designed by someone. It is in the designers interest to hold on to the secrets which led to them designing a successful object which others want to use. Open source is the term coined to anything which allows universal access to the objects blueprints via free license and also allows universal redistribution including subsequent improvements made to it by anyone. The concept is not new, but the name came about with the rise of the internet, and it is based on software which was developed with source code available to whomever uses the software – hence open source-code. As the strength and ubiquity of the internet continues to rise day-by-day, it is no wonder that an open source culture has developed. Today, communication via the internet is almost a primary means, so sharing any form of information which is transmittable in bits and bytes is exceptionally easy. The ubiquity of the internet is now overflowing into many aspects of everyday life and many of the online cultures are doing the same.

Design is a field which is very much affected by the development of the internet. Design, as a large, overwhelming practice is about communication so it would be wrong to think that the development of design practice works in conjunction with the development of the internet. Designers are beginning to understand the strength of a good open source model, but not for personal growth, for larger reasons. Charles Leadbeater, some one whom champions open source culture very strongly, talks in great depth of the Wiki model and in particular, Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a very simple framework designed by two people and currently managed by 5, which has led to the largest encyclopaedia available for free use to anyone. The encyclopaedia itself is made up of nothing but millions of articles written, for free, by a vast community which believe they are adding to something good (Leadbeater, 2008). On the contrary however, for that very reason Wikipedia is also riddled with flaws. The articles are not necessarily written by vetted academics whom have credentials to back up their claims, the articles are written and edited by any one which can lead to re-defining the truth (Keen, 2007). The Wiki model relies on the contributions and upkeep of it users, and to limit this would be self-defeating – for the model to work it must be both open and unobtrusive – if something [non-technical] goes wrong, it must be fixed by it’s users amongst themselves. This then raises many interesting arguments about authorship.

As a system needs to be designer, but that designer has to allow his or her system to develop dynamically and organically, he or she needs to be able to step back – to put the designed object into the hands of the user. This idea has strong ties to Barthes and his ideas surrounding the Death of the Author (1967). Barthes speaks of how the writer must abandon any selfish connections to his or her own work and accept that the work is in, and of itself. The writer is a transmitter, but once the writing is in the hands of the reader, the writing is now under perception of the reader and the writing is merely a junction of ‘innumerable centres of culture’. To allow the writer and his or her background to have an influence on the understanding of a given text is to limit it. If a text exists in and of itself, purely in the hands of the reader, speculation can continue. The work can be improved, modified, experimented with; this is the essence of open source culture. Everything is open ended with that exact intention, to promote and encourage experimentation with the hope that in the midst of play and tamper, there will be improvement and success. This does not exist solely in the design of open systems of literal user contribution. Michael Hansmeyer is an architect who works in the field of generative design. Hansmeyer’s works are almost self-producing where Hansmeyer just designs the algorithm which lets them grow: ‘One no longer designs an object, but a process to generate objects.’ (Hansmeyer, 2011). Hansmeyer produced a series of generatively designed columns for the Gwangju Design Biennale in 2011. In the process of constructing them Hansmeyer was forced to question his own agency in the design process of ‘his’ works. This draws parallels to the Barthes and Foucault notions of the author, and the inherent benefits of a full detachment of the author from the artefact.

The fact that there is discrepancy in Hansmeyer about his role and his creations raises questions about the human condition or the human psyche. Why is it that we must maintain ownership of something we create? Why must we attach our name to something which will be seen and used by others? Do we all inherently seek fame and recognition? Zygmunt Bauman raises an interesting paradox when he says ‘individuality is a matter of crowd spirit and a demand enforced by a crowd’ (Bauman, 2005). To be part of a crowd is to maintain individuality.

Open source culture is something can be extremely beneficial culturally and socially, but also has many deep social and cultural contradictions. However the open source model is an organic one. Deleuze and Guattari speak of the Rhizome (1980) as a well function model. Something which has no central stem or root, but functions en masse, such as a pack of rats or a fungal system. These are things which work without hierarchy but with mutual status working for a greater cause: the maintaing and improvement of the Rhizome. This ventures into territory I am interested in, but is perhaps beyond the scope of the dissertation I aim to write, as it looks at how a non-capitalsit structure operates within what is very much a culture based on top-down, Capitalist views. However, it may lead to more answers as to why open source may struggle to truly expand or reach a developmental peak.

Although authorship is a well studied topic in the world of philosophy, art and design, and the open source movement is a well documented and argued one, I do not feel there is a true connection of the two. I aim to provide a critical analysis of the open source culture and how it truly works on a psychological level and how that affects its core values.

Josh

Bibliography

Bauman, Z. (2005) Liquid life. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Certeau, M. (1984) The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Davies, C. and Parrinder, M. (2010) Limited language. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag.

Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1987) A thousand plateaus. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

DVICE (2012) Ethiopian kids hack OLPCs in 5 months with zero instruction. [online] Available at: http://www.dvice.com/archives/2012/10/ethiopian-kids.php [Accessed: 7 May 2013].

electricpulp.com (2013) Alltop – Top Open Source News. [online] Available at: http://open-source.alltop.com/ [Accessed: 7 May 2013].

Keen, A. (2007) The cult of the amateur. London: Nicholas Brealey.

Leadbeater, C. (2009) We-think. London: Profile Books.

Manovich, L. (2002) The language of new media. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Negroponte, N. (1995) Being digital. New York: Knopf.

Wiseman, B., Groves, J., & Appignanesi, R. (2000). Introducing Lévi-Strauss and structural anthropology. Cambridge, UK, Icon Books.

Senior, D. (2012) Access to Tools. Bulletins of the Serving Library, 1 (2), p.2 – 12.

Net-security.org (2013) Analyzing 450 million lines of software code. [online] Available at: http://www.net-security.org/secworld.php?id=14871 [Accessed: 7 May 2013].

Servinglibrary.org (2013) The Serving Library. [online] Available at: http://www.servinglibrary.org/ [Accessed: 7 May 2013].

Michael-hansmeyer.com (n.d.) Michael Hansmeyer – Computational Architecture. [online] Available at: http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/ [Accessed: 11 Mar 2013].

Supporting Images

Michael-hansmeyer.com (n.d.) Michael Hansmeyer – Computational Architecture: Columns. [online] Available at: http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/projects/columns.html?screenSize=1&color=1#13 [Accessed: 7 May 2013].

Tool Builders

I am, for a number of reason, very often reminded of the proverb:

If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you give a man a fishing rod, you feed him for a lifetime.

…or one of the many incarnations of it. Largely, I think, down to the fact that I am forever learning and discovering new tools: programming, drawing, physical computing. I am gradually working my way through the many videos of speakers of the recent Eyeo festival (of which there are many) and was taken by what Amit Pitaru had to say with regards to the proverb [near the end]:

 

 

Pitaru talks of the privileged position we are in. By we I am talking about the generation of multidisciplinary emergent workers who have skills and tools at our finger tips (I have prematurely added myself to this category). Particularly in reference to those which use programming as a means to design or produce art. If there is something we like the look of, we no longer have to wait for the passer-by to give us the fishing rod or show us how to use it; we take what we want and learn how to use it, free-of-charge*. Now it is up to us to decide what it is we want to do with these new tools.

Pitaru has dedicated a lot of his work to helping others. He has used his newfound skills to help produce new tools to help the disabled interact with the world, for example. I have been in an enveloping world of learning and practicing varying languages and forms of programming for about 2 years now and I am just getting to the stage where I feel I can make tools for others to use. My first venture being Ideas-Bank; led by my fascination and fondness of Open Source culture. It is not exactly popular, but I am finding myself using it really quite often. Now I know that I can create tools that I find useful, very soon I should be looking at what I can make that really will benefit others—particularly those who are not as privileged as I am.

Josh

*This is a point in itself which I am sure to return to; mostly regarding education.

What does it matter who is speaking anyway?

In this essay I aim to use a computationally generative design approach to an architectural column designed by Michael Hansmeyer as a symbol of what may be a changing approach to a design practice. I will look at how this approach is being mirrored in other aspects of design and also in social and cultural development.

The practice of design is in constant flux. Design as a practice is about being at the forefront of human engagement – it is about efficient communication and confident interaction. The human condition, however, is not in constant flux, it has and will continue to stay the same for a very long time, and yet there will always be human involvement in the process of design. The next shift in design and the process of designing however is tending towards a lesser human involvement and hopefully to better design. Michael Hansmeyer is a designer which I feel fits into this category of new [lesser involved] designers.

Michael Hansmeyer is an architect and programmer who explores the use of algorithms and computation to generate architectural form (Hansymeyer, 2011). In his own words, describing the way that he works:

One no longer designs an object, but a process to generate objects.

Hansmeyer’s techniques are fundamentally quite simple, but in the context of architecture seem quite out of place, and thus confusing. So a short explanation will add some clarity.

Hansmeyer approaches a given problem the same way another architect would; there may be some kind of architectural object that needs to be constructed and space that needs filling (not to downplay the role of the architect at all). Rather than admitting himself to his personal aesthetic desires, or human reasoning to the problem at hand, Hansmeyer attempts to find a generative solution. He designs an algorithm which will iteratively grow according to it’s given constraints. The example I intend to use are the columns Hansmeyer designed for the Gwangju Design Biennale in 2011.

The input form contains data about the proportions of the the column’s shaft, capital, and supplemental base. It also contains information about its fluting and entasis.

The initial conditions are set in place, the idea is there, but it is up to the algorithm to do the making, and no-one can really say how that will look. The role that the designer played in this process is clearly very different to that of a ‘traditional’ designer. The Oxford dictionary describes a designer as ‘a person who plans the look or workings of something prior to it being made, by preparing drawings or plans’ (Oxford Dictionary, 2012) – i.e. someone who knows what the finished product will look, or how it will behave. My saying that does raise some problematic issues however – to what extent does Hansmeyer know how the finished article will look? Hansmeyer does have to describe a number of quite particular specifications before the computer can operate. A blank column is the starting point for his algorithmic creations — and he does design the algorithm to an extent, so must have an idea of how it will look, and thus the ego of the designer will begin to creep back in. But I did not intend to use Hansmeyer’s creations as a perfect example of generative design, but merely what it represents. This is not just a niche experiment inside the world of architecture, this is a fundamental shift in how one actually approaches a design process.

I have mentioned the ego. By taking the ego of the designer out of the design process, I mean questioning notions of the author. Authorship is a topic that has been widely debated by many well known theorists, from Michel Foucault to Levi Strauss. Foucault, in ‘What is an Author?’ quotes Samuel Beckett by saying “‘What does it matter who is speaking,’ someone said, ‘what does it matter who is speaking.'” The function of the author is not to become iconic through his or her work, but to admit himself to a mere transmitter of an idea to others. Levi Strauss understands when he said ‘I don’t have the feeling that I write my books, I have the feeling that my books get written through me’ (Wiseman, 2000). Using generative methods the intention is to take the ego of the iconic designer out of the design process, and it does not need to be computational. The increasing ubiquity of computers and the internet has led to better connectivity between people, and better person to person communication is leading to a greater culture of sharing and involvement.

Charles Leadbeater gives numerous examples of communal and collaborative efforts of sharing ideas and creativity in his book ‘We-Think’. Many of his examples are purely people working together towards the same goal with low-level hierarchy — this, although at its base level is not computational at all, is close to Hansmeyer’s method of designing. I will begin with an example from Leadbeater.

The name Wikipedia sends shivers down the spine of secondary school teachers and conjures notions of half-truths and suspicious pages. All this because ‘Wikipedia is a multilingual, web-based, free-content encyclopaedia project operated by the Wikimedia Foundation and based on an openly editable model.’ (Wikipedia.com, 2013). All content on Wikipedia is user generated – those that wish to contribute what they feel is knowledge worth sharing, do so; and those that feel the information needs amending, do so. It is clear that there are major issues here if for what claims to be an encyclopaedia, there are admitted holes in it’s articles. However, the wonderful thing with Wikipedia is what happens, organically, over time. ‘From 31 articles in English in January 2001, Wikipedia had a year later amassed 17307, rising to almost a million in January 2006, and 1.5 million by 2007… The rate of growth in article in English between 2001 and 2007 was 5 million per cent, and for articles in all languages 19 million per cent’ (Leadbeater, 2009). Of course there is not a definite percentage of that which can be said to be completely trustworthy, but the sheer willingness of involvement is staggering. The community within the society which forms is just as impressive — Jimmy Wales, one of two co-founders with Larry Sanger (whom ultimately left as he disagreed with the total open access approach to Wikipedia), describes the self policing nature which forms in an open community:

Wiki software does encourage, but does not strictly require, extreme openness and decentralisation: openness since page changes are logged and publicly viewable and pages may be further changed by anyone; and decentralisation, because for work to be done, there is no need for a person or body to assign work, but rather, work can progress as and when people want to do it. (…) There is also an element of aristocracy: people who have been involved in the community longer, who have acquired a reputation have a higher standing in the community.

The Wikipedia team at its most is only 5 people. There is just too much work for a central team to govern and even survey what is going on, if a community did not form, then Wikipedia would fail. This much can be known before on the creation of such ambitious experiments like Wikipedia, but you simply will not know if that necessary ingredient will find it’s way into the system – that ingredient, in this example, is user participation. All the designers of such system can do, is design a framework – Wikipedia’s framework, unsurprisingly, is shared on the website. It is what they call the ‘five pillars’:

• Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.
• Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.
• Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute.
• Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner.
• Wikipedia does not have firm rules.

What I am now proposing is that the five pillars that Wikipedia so successfully operates on, are not that dissimilar to the blank column which Hansmeyer designs before letting his algorithmic process take over (it just so happens, that they are both pillars). The similarities here are that the designers in both examples are not seeing the process through to the end, they are letting the design process continue under the influence of an outside, more organic source.

The success of Wikipedia cannot be measured on user involvement alone — the material is, undeniably, lacking in complete verification. But success can be measured in other ways: culturally and socially, for example. Wikipedia, ultimately, is an alternative to it’s costly counterpart The Encyclopaedia Britannica – which is verified and a trustworthy source of information, however:

…most people in the world cannot afford to compare Wikipedia with the Britannica… Wikipedia is creating a global, public platform of useful knowledge that will be freely available in any school, college or family in the world, in their own language. In Africa, even where communities do not have access to the internet, teachers are using copies of Wikipedia downloaded on CDs. Wikipedia may get the odd thing wrong, but that misses the bigger picture. Jimmy Wales and his community have created a new way for us to share knowledge and ideas at scale, en masse, across the world. Wikipedias message is: the more we share, the richer we are.

There are of course critics to this notion, and it does not always work as well as one would imagine. Not every initiative which entrusts sharing to the user ends in prosperity. Andrew Keen is one such critic, and he talks about Wikipedia in his book ‘Cult of the Amateur’:

Forbes recently reported, for example, a story of anonymous McDonald and Wal-Mart employees furtively using Wikipedia entries as a medium for deceptively spreading corporate propaganda. On the McDonald’s entry, a link to Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation conveniently disappeared; on Wal-Mart’s somebody eliminated a line about underpaid employees making less than 20 percent of the 2 competition.

Recent examples show that freedom to roam an open network, connected to many people, can lead to corruption. The landing page of codr.cc now reads:

Because such a large amount of text could be shared anonymously, it was used to share identifying information, malware program coding, and spamming.  One highly covered event was the distribution of 20,000 hotmail, a free e-mail web service, passwords were distributed via Pastebin.com.  This event caused the owner to temporarily shut down the site to develop more filters to prevent this kind of event from happening again.

There are also numerous reports of how Facebook, Twitter and particularly Blackberry’s Messaging Service played roles in the London Riots of 2011. ‘Its encrypted messages give troublemakers an added benefit: Police aren’t able to immediately trace message traffic the way they can with regular cellphones.’ Due to the nature of a construct such as an open, but paid for, messaging service, it is not as easy to solve as the Pastebin incident above. ‘BlackBerry said it was cooperating with police, but shutting down the messaging system could penalise more than just the troublemakers. More than 45 million people use the BlackBerry messaging system worldwide.’ (HuffingtonPost.com, 2011).

What this critique is tending towards is the notion that designing a framework, whether for social engagement, computational or otherwise, which is too open can lead to negative usage. If people, the users, have complete control there is nothing to stop it being used in a bad way. However I believe this fundamental shift is of greater significance, and misuse of a given tool will happen regardless of the tool itself.

I have spoken of the human condition, early in this essay, and that it is something that I do not believe you or I will ever witness changing. The process of designing that I feel is the next progressive step and which requires people (designers and users alike) to admit themselves to a bigger picture; to succumb, as a cog in a mechanism, to just playing their role for the greater good (without trying to sound too dramatic). This is not an easy thing to do – after all, why do we all have icons we admire, and aspirations of recognition? However, I think to make use of other aspects of the human condition will let this happen by itself. Each person considers themselves individual, but, ‘paradoxically, individuality is a matter of crowd spirit and a demand enforced by a crowd’ (Baumant, 2005). To return to Wikipedia, it is not asking each of it’s contributors to admit themselves to the Wiki construct, but by giving every user the ability to create under his or her own name, they feel they maintain their individuality, while still getting lost in the crowd of millions of other ‘individuals’. Thomas Jefferson speaks quite gracefully of his opinion on the sharing of ideas:

That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature… Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

To better understand this, it is perhaps easiest to take humans out of the equation altogether. This is perhaps entering a realm beyond the scope of this essay, but generative, organic design methods do begin to mirror that of the truly organic world. Nervous System is a studio which works in the field of generative design, although they do only produce decorative works.

Drawing inspiration from natural phenomena, we write computer programs based on processes and patterns found in nature and use those programs to create unique and affordable art, jewelry, and housewares.

The outcome of Nervous System’s deign approach aside, they do aim to mimic natural phenomena which in itself is an interesting thing. Mathematical analysis of nature has revealed some astounding patterns. Fibonacci published Liber Abaci and his famous mathematically defined integer sequence in 1202 which occurs consistently in nature (notably the spirals in pinecones and similar organic materials). As humans we have the capacity to understand natural systems which clearly work so well, and yet we feel the need to elevate ourselves above this system. To fully understand is to become a part of it, and start designing in our own way, the same way nature intended. As Wikipedia has shown, a system can work very well if the framework is strong, but also open and flexible, and has time and space to grow. Perhaps Beckett was right when he said ‘what does it matter who is speaking?’ and we should concern ourselves with what is actually being said.

Josh

References

AP (2011) Social Media Used To Spread Britain’s Riots. [online] Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/09/facebook-twitter-london-riots_n_922633.html [Accessed: 13 Mar 2013].

Baumant, Z. (2005). Liquid life. Cambridge, UK, Polity Press.

Beckett, S. (1967). Stories & texts for nothing. New York, Grove Press.

En.wikipedia.org (2013) Wikipedia:About – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. [online] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About [Accessed: 13 Mar 2013].

Inc., N. (2013) Nervous System. [online] Available at: http://n-e-r-v-o-u-s.com/ [Accessed: 13 Mar 2013].

Keen, A. (2007). The cult of the amateur: how today’s internet is killing our culture. New York, Doubleday/Currency.

Leadbeater, C., & Powell, D. (2009). We-think. London, Profile.

Michael-hansmeyer.com (n.d.) Michael Hansmeyer – Computational Architecture. [online] Available at: http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/ [Accessed: 11 Mar 2013].

Oxforddictionaries.com (2013) Definition of designer in Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English). [online] Available at: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/designer?q=designer [Accessed: 13 Mar 2013].

Press-pubs.uchicago.edu (1905) Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8: Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson. [online] Available at: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html [Accessed: 11 Mar 2013].

Wiseman, B., Groves, J., & Appignanesi, R. (2000). Introducing Lévi-Strauss and structural anthropology. Cambridge, UK, Icon Books.

 

Undrawable

Undrawable – Micheal Hansmeyer

Architect Micheal Hansmeyer uses generative computational methods (largely using Processing) to build complex outcomes based on very simple inputs which are also controlled used very simple controllers – the algorithms are relatively simple, but the complexity grows with iteration.

The generative systems were then lent to a more practical sense. Hansmeyer felt that the column was a suitable way to go. Incidentally, I feel this was a particularly bad choice as in fact even the most famous of columns are mere embellishment as a symbol of power and wealth. However the column does demonstrate that these, initially, unmanageable constructs based on pure algorithm, can in fact be controlled and influenced to create an object of a certain design.

Therein lies Hansmeyer’s problem with this way of working—Hansmeyer was unsure of the level of agency the architect (designer) can claim in the production of such an object. The architect creates the algorithm—the starting conditions—and then all he can do is watch the ‘object’ grow. The architect can no longer design for a finished outcome, but can only design the initial state which then goes on to govern the final result.

This is a particular area of interest of mine—this idea that a modern designer no longer designs for a finished outcome, but in fact designs a set of conditions, or a framework within which a conversation can take place (socially, computationally, and beyond) and then must let this system evolve at its own wil. A designer can no longer design with a view of the final outcome, the designer must hand over the baton to the user whom becomes dictator of the outcome. I think this is an aspect to a new way of designing which is currently in it’s early days, but I am almost certain (less and less based on gut feelings) that this is the future of design—an almost styleless, egoless form of design which is based on evolution and generation—and one which does not only apply to architecture.

On a side note, Hansmeyer did experiment into taking his complex structures outside of a computer, and this was one of the results. He noted on current 3D printers lack of a resolution high enough, and robotic carving machines being too large to navigate the minuscule areas of complexity at a micro level. A layered, laser cut approach was deemed appropriate, and the above image is quite fascinating. Hansmeyer also stated, and I agree, that is is only a matter of a few years until 3D printers will have the resolution for such complexity, and this structural experiments will not take long at all—as with everything, the rate of development needs to increased for notable developments to be made.

More fantastic lectures to be found here:  Bartlett School of Architecture on Vimeo.

Josh

Organising Thoughts

It has been a while since I last posted anything, and so I thought it would be nice to start again, which I intend to now do somewhat regularly, with some organisation. Some of my interests as-of-late are:

Frameworks

The development of a framework, in which people can navigate and function within.

Largely digital, with the obvious social networking frameworks such as Facebook and Twitter; blogging with Blogger and Tumblr; open source with things like Processing, Linux, Wikipedia; and other areas.

Also physical with notions of community and person-to-person relations and folk culture.

Is the future designer one which designs frameworks, and no longer a designer which designs graphics, imagery and type – the visual is superseded by the experience and interaction.

Open Source

Mentioned before, but open source as it’s own philosophy is quite a large concept. Opening up ideas, information, data, tools etc. to the masses, for free and without discrimination, and to allow the masses to work as a self-regulating system which, in theory, improves and develops.

Also mentioned above, Wikipedia being a prime example. A device which is free and allows anyone and everyone to contribute, and yet over time, the ‘system’ (people) has learnt to regulate itself and to form its own cultures and feedback techniques – which has led to it being one of the most regularly used tools on the internet and far surpasses it’s official rivals, Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Data

Data as the new currency, and questioning and understanding its inherent worth.

The availability of data and ways in which it is ‘mined’. How can data be quantified if we can all find our own?

All these ideas intermingle and work together. I have been, and aim to build prototypes which work towards or challenge ideas I have mentioned. I also aim to write more on the topic which will hopefully mirror the design work and add some worth to small scale experiments.

A book I am currently reading is We-Think, by Charles Leadbetter. It talks a lot about the ideas I have mentioned and celebrates them. Definitely worth reading if any of this resonates with you.

Amish Barn Raising — Originally seen on Chris Thomas‘s blog, whom shares some interesting ideas.

Josh

The Internet of Things

Timo Arnall — Making Things Visible

Timo Arnall (from BERG and a number of other interesting things) talks about the idea that now, objects and tangible things are starting to connect to the internet and with each other. With the ubiquity of things like RFID and other discreet web-connected services, new data and ways of interacting with that data are forming.

I am of the school of thought that good design is when it becomes so seamlessly merged with daily life that it goes unnoticed. With interactive design, that applies to things like interfaces; the iPhone touch screen being fairly recent successful example. The user need not be fascinated by it, or concerned with the lack of buttons, but more concerned about what it is they want to use the phone for. The computer mouse is also a success story as it has barely changed since it was first invented in 1963 and does it’s job perfectly — although some have the bottle to challenge that (which is commendable). But also with Oyster cards on the London Underground, something which integrated with a very complex and important social travel system quite seamlessly.

Arnall talks about the ‘Internet of Things’ where these now web-connected things can communicate with each other giving rise to a new way of interacting with the internet. He talks about how we go to the internet, rather than it coming to us, but if the internet integrates itself with tangible objects we then begin to use it instinctively and even without knowing, then the internet becomes something else.

Wilson Miner — When We Build

It is interesting comparing Timo Arnall’s ideas to those of Wilson Miner, whom, in his When We Build talk, talks about the screen being the new venture in mankind which will literally shape the way we live and interact with the world around us. Which was once a sci-fi fantasy, but is now become quite the reality . His ideas are quite convincing and do make sense, albeit in a quite poetic and fanciful way.

I generally avoid viewing social change and development subjectively and maintain an objective outlook, trying not to dread visions of the future and the problems it brings, but rather embrace the change and look forward to seeing how the human race adapts to it — because, on the whole, we do quite well. But I do like the idea of the internet integrating itself into tangible objects and moving away from the screen. I think the screen will always be the fundamental interface for almost everything we do in the near future, but it is nice to have something else to interact with more intuitively.

Schulze and Webb developed Availabot which:

Makes it easy to see when a particular friend of yours is available for instant messaging, even when you’re not sitting in front of your computer.

Although it does need to be plugged in via USB to a computer, the point is that it is an early prototype for a new way of interacting with the internet. It also provides something fun and something which people coule potentially personalise, which I think will be important in a very screen based world.

Nike+ is another example, but this is perhaps more useful and serves a more interesting purpose. I have had many frustrating moments with the maps feature on my iPhone when I have needed it most, and have resorted to leaving an A-to-Z in my bag to make up for the iPhones trappings, so I am dubious as to how well Nike+ really works – but it is another early example of how things could work in the Internet of Things.

The Nike+iPod Sports Kit is a device which measures and records the distance and pace of a walk or run. The Nike+iPod consists of a small transmitter device attached to or embedded in a shoe, which communicates with either the Nike+ Sportband, a receiver plugged into an iPod Nano, or directly with an iPod Touch, iPhone 3GS or iPhone 4 or a Nike+ Sportwatch.

It is something which actively encourages the user to get out and exercise in the real world and actually looks really quite useful and accurate. Of course the user needs to return to the screen at the end of a run to access the data, but it is a new kind of data that could only be accessed by integrating the internet into tangible and useable objects.

The Internet of Things is a concept which is quite new [to me, at least] but is one which gets more exciting the more I think about it. But what is most exciting for me is that the underlying, driving force behind this development, or the development of screen based technologies is the internet. I think it’s amazing the internet has become such an important thing, and is shaping the way we design and live our lives — and is something I think I would quite like to be a part of.

Josh