Inhabitat for real

Abigail Doan and her Inhabitat team put together a nice little piece on this light.






You can see the original post here

Notcot.org, Kinda

Its not a real post yet, but this is a big blog, so I will take anything i can get.

http://www.notcot.org/post/10552/

Moco Loco, Kind of.

Moco Loco picked up on the Inhabitat coverage of Brooklyn Designs.

Brooklyn Designs show. Good press.

I got to show at the Pratt booth at the Brooklyn Designs show. I learned a couple things.

1. The Pratt booth this year was exceptional. On Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, our booth was packed solid for a good three hours.

2. We were given some major attention by some big interior designers, Amy Lau being one of them (http://www.amylaudesign.com) unfortunately, none of her attention was lavished on me, but that's ok.

3. If you have a booth with a lot of different things, you get people to stay in there longer. People would just walk by other booths, while almost everyone came in and sat in all our chairs, looked at all our lights, layed in Chas' coffin (kidding)


In anycase, I got some attention from inhabitat. I gave a good talk on LED lighting, and they featured me on their site. Check it out.

here are some photos:

Pratt booth:


Lead Photo on entry:



Image for BKLYN DESIGNS Galleries:



The ball is starting to roll. NICE!

Moving on.

I never really finished blogging about my thesis project, but the project itself got to be so crazy that there was never really time. So its too bad about that. But I did make some amazing things out of it, and those are starting to get some press. From now on, this will be my press page.

Environment chapter stub

Below is a stub of a chapter, or section on environmental considerations.

Keeping things out of the land fill.

Companies large and small are feeling the pressure to become “environmental.” This urge manifests itself across a spectrum of involvement. For some companies, they seem only to claim they are making moves, while others are working hard to change their processes from the ground up. The task of reducing use of resources, from energy and oil, to raw materials such as iron ore and wood, is a challenge for even the smallest of objects. But these considerations only pay attention to the life before it gets to the consumer. Most of the life of the material that goes in to that product is going to spend much more of its time buried in the ground.

Think for a moment how long you use a toothbrush. It is recommended that you get a new one every six months. Meaning, for six months, the plastic in that brush will be “in use.” It will be used for the purposes for which it was produced. But how much longer will that object be around? The old tried and true method, the standard, is to throw it away, send it to the landfill. But why does it have to go there? Why does its life have to be done? It must be de rigeur for the designer to think about and examine the use of the product, but also imagine the life of a product. Perhaps more directly, they must think of the lives of the materials from which the product is made. They must have a plan for the making, the molding, the machining, the fastening, the coating, the assembly, the use, the re-use, the disassembly, and perhaps the distribution of the materials once again.

One of the challenges that a new product, or its designer, faces, is the overwhelming number of ways in which we deplete resources in our current production/design cycle. There is so many different modes of transportation, raw materials, production methods, coatings, as well as re use methods, recycling options and disposal questions. Being at the beginning of this exploration, it seems like there is a lot of confusion regarding priorities.

My priorities for this project were:
Keep as much out of the land fill as possible.
During use phase, The object should be able to capture and store its own energy.
i.e. does not need to be plugged in.

Special attention must be afforded to the electronic components. Many of these things are multi-material and manufactured. I want to try to reduce the number of components which fall into this category, but making a light-up bookmark, Energy must be stored and discharged on command.

I am trying to use a number of production methods encourage recycling, and reuse. first, be mindful of the expected use stage for the product. How long do I think this is going to last? Work to make it possible for the user to disassemble and repair on their own. Try to have replacement parts available and cheap for sale. Engage a community of people who see products as a sum of parts. These physical hackers, work to explore the possibilities of objects as a hobby. They generally interface with objects through disassembly and reassembly. Creating objects which appeal to these people will, hopefully, lead to more and more people understanding the ease with which this object can be repaired or reused.

Second, To construct the original object, I want to focus my search for materials on types of materials which are easily recycled, coming from recycled sources, or come from the consumer themselves. This group includes: Steel, copper, other commodity metals, wood, paper, and simple electronic components which could be scavenged from other broken electronic objects.

Robert Blinn, in his thesis, The paradox of weakness : embracing vulnerability in product design, suggests that we work with screws not glue, claiming that we work hard to make things last for ever, when we only use them for a limited amount of time. Applied here, that means we would use folding tabs to hold this together, instead of laminating the thing together. This concept plays even closer to the hole when you realize, its not just easy to disassemble to make it easier to recycle, it also makes it easier mod the thing to alter the desired use. For instance, it should be easy to turn a light-up bookmark into a night light.

This widespread inclusion of the “prosumer” user, is slowly gaining ground. Lego used a small number of these people to develop their latest robotics kit, the Lego Mindstorm NXT. (quote) through a process of combing message boards, devoted to people sharing information, they were able to identify a number of people who seemed, both highly knowledgeable in the existing products, and therefore exceptionally active in these community boards. They are not the only companies to have success in this strategy. Spyderco, an american pocket knife company has a lively forum section to their website, where even the president of the company is a frequent contributor. I myself used this board to “interview users” exploring their thoughts on knife innovation. Through a phone interview with one of spyderco’s engineers, he told me that they take those forums very seriously, using them to identify problems, new materials, consumer wishes, not to mention receiving serious fan mail. Many people spend a lot of time on these forums, and ask nothing in return, they seem to be happy contributing to the success of an object they love. This seems like a simple and strong way to recruit what Guy Kawasaki (quote) calls Evangelists. People who love the product, and are willing to speak out on their behalf, because of their own love.

One more stand out example, is the iMate Roomba. A robotic vacuum cleaner, the story goes, that the engineers used a number of different circuit boards because it was cheaper, not knowing that it would make it easier to hack. (fill in)

These steps, enlisting help, providing a meeting place, and making it accessible can help draw people to your product as well as give them ownership of it. This ownership, creates an emotional bond, ultimately driving the user to want to keep the object around for longer. It is partly up to the designer to help find uses, beyond the original use, which appeal to the user, perhaps convincing them that they have gotten two objects for the price of one.

Bookmark

After a lot of thought, and a long discussion with Fred, I decided to cut down the product section of my thesis to one object. Looking at my mindmap and outline, I realized that there would be way too much time taken for prototyping. In light of this fact, I decided to explore the desk lamp at a later date. I think the focus of this project should really be: Ecological strategies, product selling strategies, and Aesthetics. In that light, I have started learning Solidworks to model some designs. It's an interesting exercise to model things by hand and in computer. The computer really changes the way you look at things, and the way you think about making things. Here are some quick renderings, no lights, no material skins, just to see what I am thinking about, It really reminds me of a wing right now, I am working on different ways to add depth so I can get some electronics in there...

Enjoy.


Perspective view.


Detail view.


Front view.


Side view.

From THESIS LIGHTS

Reposting, and linking.

I rewrote the last entry, I think it's clearer.

Also, if you don't know, you can see some earlier lights here:
www.Studio1Thousand.com

Back to the grind soon.

Aesthetics: No Excuses

In the creation of objects, one must design for both the conscious and unconscious mind. One must appeal to the conscious, rational centers, along with the unconscious, or subconscious centers.

The rational mind expects, or looks to understand form through objectifying patterns, complimentary colors, things that make sense. These little idea-ettes lead the eye and mind to read patterns, leading to understanding without actually examining the whole object. The mind groups like items with like items. These visual ideas can use historical references to create shortcuts in the mind, explaining different forms and functionality so the user can make sense of the object more quickly. Through different signifiers: historical forms, traditions, people’s past experiences with similar objects, I can help lead people to a rational understanding of the object.

This rationality, a certain predictability, calms the soul. It provides a sense of foundation, which you, the user can feel comfortable. I seek to give you assurances that everything is where it should be, and you can rest easy. This is not to say that these ideas or patterns, or colors, or forms will be simple. It is not to say that they will be easy to understand, but at their core, they feel right.

This cannot be the entirety of your interaction with the object. Be it a light, a phone, jewelry. I would call this a one trick pony. If the forms only conform to this, you will discover, and “figure it out.” When the mind feels like it has solved this puzzle, it will become bored with this and mentally discard the object. That is why there must be a balance between the rational centers of the brain, and the irrational wanderings of the subconscious.

These areas of cognizance, where we expect the unexpected, and wait or hope for something to challenge us, must be tapped each time we interact with items. Be it visually, tactilely, or emotionally, it is my job to try to incite and excite people over and over.

If the conscious mind is given a foundation of understanding and comforted by the rationality of predictability, only then can the subconscious be free to explore and fantasize. From this point of departure, things appeal to us that are not explicable. The subconscious is free to make connections that the rational mind cannot make because it is too wrapped up in reality. Perhaps they can reconnect some memories that were dormant. These are the things that we are drawn to. Not only that, these are the things that we cannot explain what draws us to them. Some of us who are lucky (or unlucky) enough to have a vocabulary to explain visual elements, can probably construct some sort of commentary on proportion, relations, hue, saturation, etc. But does that really explain why people like or dislike these things?

In my designs and choices for people looking at my objects, I am not really thinking about whether other people are going to like/dislike these things. My first concern, as many people know, and have commented, is to ask myself, “is this different enough?” Can we make this different enough so that it is outside the realm of what people have seen before? At the same time, I want people to know what it is, or at least I want people to feel comfortable near and around these things. I want them, the people or the objects, to feel familiar.

Upon immediate reflection, I hope these objects can generate gravity through a combination of familiarity and curiosity of the unknown. In different objects, the view from far away will be familiar and draw people in, while others will employ the guile and intrigue of the unknown, only revealing a familiarity within a close proximity. This doesn’t work as well in longer lasting relationships with objects. To really be long lasting, I believe there must be an instant familiarity, which leads to a rabbit hole of intrigue keeping interest close, slowly revealing inspirations.

Where What are the GOOD ideas?

I think there is a sense in school that ideas can be left on the floor. As in, lost on the cutting room floor. There are so many good ideas that come from a school environment, where all you have to do is think of the idea. But when you have to come up with an idea every week, every month, every class, there are so many pearls, seeds of good ideas which could really ride with more work. Most, if not all of these, get a pic taken, and are set in the pile of old foam/ideas.

I'm in Seattle now, and I have the luxury of working in the Koolhaas library. There is a sense of completion which I think a designer of any kind should be proud of. Standing in the wings of this stage, I know what it takes to make a simple light, and can appreciate even more, what it takes to make something, anything of interest. I think Seattle made a really good choice to build this, its been full every time I have been here, there is always room, and it's always interesting to work in.

But how does a student decide which ideas are good enough to revisit? Does she gage the amount of interest in the studio? Does he listen to his peers? Perhaps he simply "believes." I think it has become obscenely clear that the ideas we work with in the studio are a long way from anything that can be made. What is the level of preparation which pratt should work to explain to the students? I think in some ways the program has dug itself into a hole because it has a very wide set of exit parameters. I.e. people from Pratt find themselves doing all sorts of things for work. Small furniture, Smart Design, design consultancies out on Long Island, automotive... It would be so easy to shave the program down to only a couple outlets, and focus on those things. I do not advocate that. The thing that keeps me going back to the studio, day after day, is to listen to friends who have very similar interests.

Furthermore, I think that any sort of tracking will kill the "liberal arts" style of education that Pratt ID seems to have adapted. But that leaves us in the same place, where people who come out of school are not really prepared to come out and just start producing objects, which seems like it should be the most basic of operations for a recently grad with a MA in design. Maybe I have it wrong, maybe being able to produce nice things in limited quantities is the pinnacle of the design world, the piece de resistance. Even then, why do I not feel ready to produce the things I want to make?

Ok, but back to the original question. How do you identify good ideas? is there a strategy for this? Is this something that people have been thinking about for a long time? I guess I could read about this for endless nights, and maybe at the end I will be smarter. Can we learn to identify only the good ideas in a forest of all sorts of ideas?