A little background on the exhibition – there were a number of different kinds of “lists” — to-do lists, thoughts, inventories, collections—all made by famous personalities such as, Franz Klien, Picasso, Elaine de Kooning etc…. from the Smithsonian’s Archives on American Art. A wonderfully curated show, with a fabulous sense of humor.

The idea that resonated with me the most was the metonymic nature of the lists. The reductive aspect of communicated large, relevant, deep, intangible ideas through a list of words, pictures and colors.

A beautiful list by Joan Snyder represented her response to the question, “What is feminist art?”. There are several definitions of the idea, but the simplicity and the wholeness with which she distills the complexity of the idea into a few essential points is like magic.

What is Feminist Art? The list goes:

“FEMALE SENSIBILITY IS LAYERS, WORDS, MEMBRANES, COTTON, CLOTH, ROPE, REPETITION, BODIES, WET, OPENING, CLOSING REPETITION, LISTS, LIFESTORIES, GRIDS, DESTROYING GRIDS, HOUSES, INTIMACY, DOORWAYS, BREASTS, VAGINAS, FLOW, STRONG, BUILDING, PUTTING TOGETHER MANY DISPARAGING ELEMENTS, REPETITION, RED, PINK, BLACK, EARTH FEEL COLORS, THE SUN, THE MOON, ROOTS SKINS, WALLS, YELLOW, FLOWERS, STREAMS, PUZZLES, QUESTIONS, STUFFING, SEWING, FLUFFING, SATIN, HEARTS, TEARING, TEARING, TEARING, TYING, DECORATING, BAKING, FEEDING, HOLDING, LISTENING, SEEING THRU THE LAYERS, OIL, VARNISH, SHELLAC, JELL, PASTE, GLUE, SEEDS, THREAD, MORE, NOT LESS, REPETITION, WOMEN CRITICS, WOMEN, WRITERS, WOMEN ARTISTS, EITHER NOURISHING US OR EATING US UP ALIVE, TOKENISM, CURATORS, UNIVERSITIES, TOKENISM, FEAR OF OTHER WOMEN TO AKNOWLEDGE FEMALE SENSIBILITY, HOSTILE BOY ARTISTS, ACCEPTING MEN ARTISTS, SEPARATING THE MEN FROM THE BOYS, DIVIDING WOMEN, PIECE OF PIE-ISM, MONEY, ART, SEX, BREASTS, LAYERS, SYMPHONIES, MULT-IROLED, MULTI-PART, STORIES, NARRATIVE, PAINT/FLESH, SERIOUS, OVERWHELMING, SOFT, HARD, WOMEN WORKING, WORKING WOMEN, HANGING, DANGLING, BREAKING, BEING FRUITY, ANGRY, NAIVE, BORN AGAIN AND TRYING TO DESCRIBE HOT WHITE FLESH TIES..”

Attached below are some of the lists on display – if you are in the city, its a must see show!

{I wasn’t allowed to photograph inside, so all the images here are linked from google search results.}

\

I’ve been asking the same question to myself in the last few weeks. Last Thursday and Friday we had the career fair here at Carnegie Mellon School of Design, firms from all over the country participated and spoke to design students about their work, asking probing questions about their views on interaction, technology, aesthetics etc. A few of the firms that I interviewed with (I prefer not to say which ones :-S) seemed to be most interested in all the projects I have which revolve around mobile apps and website design. One of my projects featured (here) seemed to receive a lot of curiosity about why I had not designed the interface for the mobile application. Made me wonder, do I need to have an app for everything to get an employers attention? Where does the decision to make an app come from? Or generally, where does the decision to make anything with technology come from?

(Our Studio class seems to be taking on a different perspective on this subject – coming soon)

But what does that mean exactly for me? When I think about it, i think of my designs as my responsibility – behaviors that i am causing to change in the world out there, in big and small ways. Actually small… very small—i don’t think I have impacted many people really. But coming from a country where fundamental needs such a food, shelter, safety are still striving to be met, maybe I just understand the word responsibility as social action and social needs—its difficult for me to understand it in a nuanced way I think. Oh and I also blame that on my Design for the Real World book, which I held on to very tightly during undergrad.

Elaine Scarry in her book, On beauty and being just—(I JUST started reading it, recommended by Suguru for my thesis) makes a thoughtful point when she says beauty prompts a copy of itself. This can mean that a visual event experienced may be reproduced as a touch or a drawing, which may be reproduced again as a visual event which may again become an acoustical event—its like that game right, Chinese whisper (as I have known it) or telephone, grapevine whatever youmacall it.

Not only do I practice that, by looking at artifacts, but I also cause it when others conceive what I design. Does that add to my responsibility then? I mean, if im gonna leave a little something behind for future generations then do i really wanna leave a perfume tester bottle holder?

It very nicely represents the dilemma of current times, where we have made available—many tools, amazing sets of ideas, diverse skill sets; but what are we gonna do with all of this?

– cheap technologies, fast processing computers (which would consume rooms and rooms of space in other times are now on our tables, for each one of us), search engines that can find anything (including abandoned log cabins on Forbes Avenue in the middle of Pittsburgh city) social networking which enables connections over time, geographies and cultures, renewable energy (proliferating through more and more communities by the day) fast updating information at our finger tips; here are all the tools of change—now, what are we gonna do.

*I remember Geetha Narayanan using the Mau question in her conversations with me and others – but till now I never truly got it.

link to more photos from the series: http://www.jordanmatter.com/photography/dance-photography/dancers-among-us/gallery.php#

But it got me thinking- its very cool to build these technology centered societies and cities – but it is increasingly making me wonder about why exactly? What kind of question or problem is the technology an answer to?

Any kind of innovative formula today means the inclusion of technology. I do not by any means want to reject technology, I am merely a technology skeptic. I am only questioning the worldwide drive to include technology in everything around us. I understand that pervasive computing, smart homes, wearable computing, and lots of other stuff I may not be aware of are here to stay and will continue to transform the way we live. But the important question here is HOW?

John Thackara provides a very important point to ponder about: he says, “Sensitivity to context, to relationships, and to consequences are key aspects of the transition from mindless development to design mindfulness”. I think personally, this is my design challenge for this project.

So, first semester into my new masters program at CMU, I picked it up again. There’s just always something new to learn in a second read.

I have only re-read the preface so far. But it got me thinking – is design a phony profession? If I look at my practice of design, within visual communications most of my work with typography and layout has been in someway about advertising for someone or something—Identity design, brochures, posters, and other persuasive material design. A couple of my school projects included perfume tester holders that imbibed the philosophy of the Jean Paul Gaultier brand, brand research for Nokia phones and concepts for application development — of course, all these are school projects, but it made me think – is this phony?

(My work as part of a class on Packaging Design, Undergraduate Studies, 2006)

Is this an illustration of something that Papanek points out in the first few pages of this book as persuading people to buy things they don’t need, with money they don’t have, in order to impress others who don’t care. What does it mean to spend meaningful time and thinking on designing a perfume bottle tester display for someone who doesn’t need it?