Design?

What is designing? How does it begin? How does it end? I have learned a great deal about these formalities through out my education and training, but one that is still hard to come by is criticism. As the past two weeks have unfolded criticism was a touchy subject amongst one another other. I believe criticism should be constructive on both sides, receiving and as well as communicating to one another. All scenarios must be brought out in order to understand the right and wrong decisions and the implications of one another. It shouldn't be used as method to lash out but, to create situations of a higher, more in depth thought process. On one hand it's a hard thing put yourself out on display for your peers and instructors to understand. The work you produce becomes an extension of yourself. Almost as if it parallels your inner most thoughts. But on the other hand we must learn to set our selves aside and let the work speak for its self. To be digested by others...to understand our thoughts. If we can't make fun of our own work...then who can?

As the class unfolded there was a clear division of how criticism was perceived.

1. "The defensive"
2. "The inferior"
3. "Why not?"
4. "Screw it"

"The defensive," were usual the ones who felt most responsible for the creation of the design. For the most part these were the ones that would not allow the design to grow outside of their control. It was as if you had to pass a screening process if you wanted an idea be pursued by the group. They would take criticism the harshest because everything was an attack on their project rather than the general understanding that is a group project. These people do not get along with the "why not" category. The "why not's" are usually the one that ask the greater amount of questions and bring about an overload of criticism. You could see the tension grow greater between "the defensive" and "the why not" group as if it was the calm before the storm. Then finally the tension grows so great that a harmless comment creates a shit storm. After that either one of the two scenarios take place. Scenario 1) "The defensive" gets their way and "the why not" leaves converting into the "screw it" category. Then the class gets real quite while that person leaves. Once the sound of the stair well door closes everything goes back to normal and the comments begin about how big an "ass" the other person was. Scenario 2) "The why not" get their way, but it is just a mere moral victory. "The defensive" usually doesn't walk out but become more bitter and no longer accepts any more criticism. The lights turn off mentally and plot their next battle with "the why not." Scenario 1 is the typical result.

"The inferior," this group can be easily confused with the "screw it" group. The only known distinction is that "the inferior" group work just as hard as the defensive. Just because the group is named, "the inferior," doesn't mean they are of lesser caliber person but it describes the willingness to adapt to direction given to them. They are very task oriented and dedicated to the project. They are very content maintaining the status qua of group ideas. Although the tasks are usually handed down by "the defensive," which creates a logical hierarchy within the studio culture of a group project. This division begins a series of check a balances that keeps "the defensive" in control of their project.

"The Why Not's," this group is the most interesting to watch unfold. They are usually the most reckless with their choice of words. Although they have valid points of view they don't verbally communicate correctly or efficiently for the rest to holistically understand all of their intentions. This group gets along the best with the "screw it,"group. The rest of the characteristics of this group has been explained in "the defensive" category as mentioned above.

"The Screw It," group maintains the lowest level of participation. They are perfectly content doing their assigned work and getting a good full night of sleep. Rather than actively looking for more work to complete they do "their" part and leave. Group interaction is not important, but focus more on individual work.

It's funny how a design begins to take on a life of its own. As we move towards a final product many ideas begin to dictate themselves, as if preliminary set of rules or intent build upon one another telling you what to do instead of visa-verse.