Contextualising Design Essay

This semester, we’ve had several lectures focused on different points of view on the subject of design. The first of which was the viewing of “Beautiful Losers” (showed to us by lecturer Adam Cooke), a documentary which focused on a group of artists who started a new kind of contemporary art on the 1990’s focused on music culture, graffiti and other urban influences.

          The subject matter wasn’t terribly relevant to our course specifically, but there was a sense that there was definitely something important to take away from it. It felt familiar hearing the artists’ opinions as they reveal that they believed they were doing unimportant stuff and art for their own sakes. They certainly didn’t expect their work to become the focus of a gallery exhibition or international acclaim.

This is similar to how I’ve felt, for example when told by previous art teachers that “we are the new future in art” and “our work is going to be in the galleries”. I’ve never really felt ‘commercial’ about my art. I’ve always related to my work on a personal level, that I do it for my own pleasure. Of course, I like showing other people my work and it’s wonderful if they also get a reaction from it the way I do.

The other thing that struck me was the fact that these artists bonded as friends and it made their objective stronger. They did their art work together as a kind of hobby and it developed into a big thing. Several of the artists were very clear on discussing the effect of having their friends with them, that they would compliment each other and the atmosphere would help with inspiration. One particular artist said that the love he had for his friends was the drive that helped him achieve what he has, and that the most important thing is that the only thing you take to the grave is the love you have for others, you can’t take money.

To me, it was a very profound statement to make and I believe that he is right in every way. Since coming to University, the atmosphere and my friends have certainly developed into my driving force to continue on my path. Collaboration and critical thinking seems so much more invaluable after seeing “Beautiful Losers”.

Another lecture we had was by Yvonne Eckersley, concerning the work of Norman McLlaren and the relationship of music and colour within the art world (Visual Music). Norman McLlaren did several works focused around the sounds of music being in tune with various colourful animations, as a way of saying that colour and sound had a symbiotic relationship and were interchangeable. Each sound had its own corresponding colour and each had a 'scale', whether of octaves or shades.

Several artists had already researched into colour theory based on Isaac Newton's spectrum of seven colours. Johann Wolfgang Van Goethe, Albert Munsell and Johannes Itten were among the group of people who started to introduce colour theory based on the spectrum into the general consensus.

Before McLaren, other artists had already suggested that sound and colour had this synergetic connection: Arcimboldo (famous for his vegetable and fruit renditions of people) first invented 'colour music' in the late 1500s. It was not until the 1920's when the device known as the Clavilux was fully realised as a 'colour organ'. Dr William Moritz was one of the more famous historians on visual music, as he focused particularly on the work of Oskar Fischinger.

Talking about this connection between two differing mediums (colour and music) and the fact that is an recognized form of art almost harkens to how we can integrate different mediums and influences into our own work. Doing digital art for  computer games, I doubt any revolutionary technique can be conceived from simply blending 'sound and colour' within a game, or anything similar. But experimental games (known as 'art games' in the genre) that focus more on visuals with little gameplay are becoming more rapid in today's world. Film projects are becoming more integrated with video games, such as 'interactive movies' and vice-versa. It seems that synergy is definitely important regardless of which media you specialize in.

One lecture which I found completely irrelevant however, was The Sustainable Lie, which discussed how 'green' we ought to be. There was talk of 'greenwashing', a controversial act which many companies employ: causing more recycling problems by advertising about recycling or 'trying' to be greener. I found this irrelevant to us: us digital artists don't use hardly any physical materials like paper, canvas, cardboard, etc.

Our canvas is digital, therefore we don't waste. The only way we could be greener is to use computers less, but then we wouldn't be able to work efficiently so it's an incompatible idea. The only way I could see that takes something from here, is to incorporate 'green' behaviour and standards into games and characters. Many video games have prominent ecological and environmental storylines and themes.

The lecture on 'Innovation' was quite interesting (by Dan Berry), which started with him describing the interiors of his iPhone and how he took it apart to examine the innards. He explained about all the innovative technology in today’s world that monitors the user in many ways, supposedly for improving their designs. For example, Apple iPad units monitor their users that read digital comics such as the distance the user is from the screen, time of day and night, etc. He also gave an interesting aspect on iPhones, explaining that their most innovative features was the touchscreen which changes its ‘buttons’, unlike Blackberry smartphones which have a fixed set of keys. The fact that the buttons and input system are customisable makes it a unique product and a definitive innovation.

Although not strictly aimed at us, it did offer me a different perspective on design. Thinking about how the user interacts physically as well as mentally with a designed product is a vital part of whether a product is successful or unsuccessful. The sleek design and customisable touchscreen of the iPhone tailors itself to the user and allows them to be more ‘free’ with their mobile phone/device. One with buttons restricts the user in a way and can be frustrating when making mistakes on the touchpad. In effect, these two similar devices have completely different effects on their users just because of the input systems. In terms of games, there is a definite market for interactive games for touchscreen ‘media’, such as the Nintendo 3DS or games on the App Store and this method of interaction seems to offer a great opportunity to be more innovative when designing the games.

Adam Cooke gave another lecture showing us the documentary film “Manufactured Landscapes”, which concerned the work of Edward Burtynsky, a photographer who chronicles the planet’s landscapes that have been seriously affected by human activity. Again, I didn’t find this too relevant to our course and we had already watched this film as part of our Level 4 work, so in effect it wasn’t too necessary to watch it again. One of the things I gleaned from this was the sheer magnitude that the human race has changed Earth’s landscapes, especially in China and Bangladesh, and that by photographing these environments and showing the world the images, the ‘design’ has become a way of altering people’s perceptions and revealing truths.

The most interesting lecture (in terms of teaching about design) was by Marisse Mari, concerning ‘Design Thinking’. It was nice to hear that designing had a kind of ‘laundry list’ in which one must consider whether the thing they are designing is needed, whether it will impact the environment, whether it sticks to its concept, solves a problem and considers ethics and consequences for the societal climate. The fact that she mentioned collaboration and that the design thinker ‘cares about the people he designs for’ only strengthens my feeling I had when I watched ‘Beautiful Losers’.

She also featured in her presentation about Victor Papanek, who quotes “Design is the conscious and intuitive effort to impose meaningful order”. I disagree slightly; I believe some aspects of design come naturally and don’t require conscious thought, such as ethics for example. This is supported by Mat Hunter from the Design Council: “Design is all around you; everything man-made has been designed whether consciously or not”. I believe this statement much more strongly, as I believe there is a designer in everyone and we all have a certain degree of how to properly design things in our unconscious.

The other thing I found interesting is the impact (the result of design). Different designers desire different impacts, whether it’s to help others, change society or perform a set function (like entertainment). As digital artists for computer games, I feel games too have different functions. Despite their entertainment value, it is obvious that designers have designed them with the user in mind and for different impacts.

For example, “Metal Gear Solid 2” designed by Hideo Kojima is a tactical espionage stealth game. Apart from its entertaining function, the game conveys a serious storyline, focused on bringing the audience’s attention to how much we rely on electronics and how the digital world is spiralling rapidly out of control, especially as the human race seems to use it to produce ‘junk data’ like slander and petty issues. Despite being released in 2001, the game’s visionary storyline has really become relevant in today’s world, especially due to the advent of social networking (which clearly produces tons of useless data), so it is clear that the designers had done their research and communicated their message well using the design of the game. Clearly, design can have many outcomes depending on who is designing.

Another important quote comes from Hironobu Sakaguchi, who said: "I don't have what it takes to make an action game. I think I'm better at telling a story." This statement alone really shows that he hasn’t even considered the commercial aspect of his games. He clearly cares only about the audience, wanting to tell them stories. It even suggests he doesn’t think of them as games in a sense, he sees them as his way of telling stories. I have great admiration for Sakaguchi because I adore the award-winning series, Final Fantasy, which he created and designed extremely well.

Other important quotes: “The only thing important about design is how it relates to people” by Victor Papanek, which I strongly agree with this time. Design is certainly for people, and it should be those people that we bear in mind when designing. Charles Earnes says “Artists are trouble makers, Designers are problem solvers” but I disagree. I think that both art and design are one and the same. Art has to be designed initially before it can take true form. Similarly, designs are usually backed up with art, such as sketching or concept art. They both co-exist along each other and can’t really exist without one another, so separating some users as ‘trouble-makers’ and some as ‘problem-solvers’ isn’t really necessary, as art can solve problems and design can cause trouble.

“Animation is not the art of drawings that move, but the art of movements that are drawn. What happens between each frame is much more important than what exists on each frame” is what Norman McLaren said. I agree with this statement as I think the meaning behind what you design is just as important as how you design it (which relates to consideration of the audience/user again). In games, the visuals are not what gives that game its heart or meaning; it is in fact the way the game is structured and the level of thought that goes into its concept.

For example, “Duke Nukem Forever” a first person shooter game that had its origins in the 90’s, when gaming was still a new thing and conventions like ‘babes and guns’ were popular. Now of course, those themes are politically incorrect and most designers have redesigned modern games tailored to the new attitudes and thinking about the audience. ‘Duke Nukem Forever’ however hadn’t been adapted to the modern audience and wasn’t designed well at all. Levels were overlong, controls were clunky, the protagonist was a stereotypical butch misogynist with guns and it was ultimately a very unsuccessful game, because it hadn’t been designed with the modern audience in mind. Times change and so do the products. Designers have to ensure that they know what is on the market and how to be innovative in that market.

To round off, my manifesto of design (as I’m doing games) would be:

·         To always consider and care for the audience. You are designing for other people and you should therefore put yourself in their shoes when you design.

·         To design collaboratively and with critical thinking and analysis.

·         To never limit yourself when designing in terms of ideas. Ideas are just that: ideas. Making them in the flesh is part of the challenge.

·         Designing can also be a work of art.