Learning to Draw, a Student’s Perspective

Alex’s post was perfectly timed, since today was the start of a series of drawing exercises I’m working through from Betty Edward’s well-known Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain.  I heard about the methodology from reading Daniel Pink’s A Whole New Mind.  He took the 5 day course in person (I’m settling for just working through the book), and showed his before and after drawings, which were stunningly different, so I thought it would be worth giving it a go.

The course is built around the understanding that we actually have some amazingly powerful visual perceptual abilities, but that our logical, symbolic modes of thought that dominate our everyday existence suppress those abilities.  This means that when we look at a chair, we quickly discard the visual information and condense it into the symbol/word of ‘chair’.  This is often a very useful skill, but it would be even better if we could switch to other modes of thought at will.  So the course takes you through a series of exercises to teach you how to quieten the symbolic modes of thought.  One fascinating insight that drives the design of a few of these exercises is that the symbolic/language mode (often reductively referred to as Left-Brianed or L-mode) of thinking will concede dominance if it finds the task to be excessively confusing, slow or boring.  I’ll get into some of those exercises during later posts.

For the start of the course, the book asks you to make some reference drawings so that you can see how you change over the course.  In the AC4D spirit of learning publicly, I’ve posted my drawings after the jump.

Continue reading Learning to Draw, a Student’s Perspective

Learning to draw. Lesson 1.0

Over the last few days, several people in the class have expressed interest in learning how to draw.  While I don’t really consider myself to be particularly good at drawing, it is something that I do often (for work and fun) and it’s also something I genuinely enjoy.   So with that in mind I thought it would be good to write a post or two about some tips, tricks, and thoughts I’ve found useful on the subject of doodlin’.

  • Go out and get a sketchbook.  Flip to the middle somewhere, and rip out a page.  Now go back to the first page and start drawing.

I used to go out and buy sketchbooks with the intention of filling them with the sweetest drawings ever… only to get home, open it up, and be afraid to draw on the first page for fear of messing up and ruining the sketchbook.  I didn’t want the first page to suck!  By tearing out a page the sketchbook was no longer perfect so my drawings didn’t have to be perfect either.

  • Try to figure out what kind of things you enjoy drawing, and then draw a lot of them.  If you don’t know where to begin, try this:
  1. Draw something that is in front of you.
  2. Draw something you remember seeing.
  3. Draw something from your imagination.

Often times people forget to draw things they like.  Trust me; it’s a good place to start.  And remember this can be anything… shapes, objects, monsters, robots, people, stick figures, patterns… whatever you like.  Just get in the habit of drawing often.   This will also help you find areas which you want to improve.

  • Hands are the hardest thing to draw, period.  This is not up for debate.

You look at them all day long, they’re generally right in front of you, and you know exactly what they look like.  If you ever figure out how to draw them, please let me know.

Learning to draw is sort of like learning to see from a different point of view.  This book has a lot of fun exercises that can help readjust the lens through which you see.  Specifically it focuses on these 7 principles:

  1. Curiosita: An insatiably curious approach to life.
  2. Dimonstratzione: A commitment to test knowledge through experience.
  3. Sensazione: The continual refinement of the senses, especially sight, as the means to clarify experience.
  4. Sfumato: A willingness to embrace ambiguity, paradox, and uncertainty.
  5. Arte/Scienza: The development of the balance between science and art, logic and imagination (“whole-brain thinking”).
  6. Corporalita: The cultivation of ambidexterity, fitness, and poise.
  7. Connessione: A recognition and appreciation for the connectedness of all things and phenomena; “systems thinking.”

I believe all of these things are important in relation to drawing, but of course they are also important in design thinking and design doing!  Now, go forth and doodle.

Interesting work from IDEO

“Poor people can’t afford cheap things.”

When companies design products and services for the poor, they often think about making them as low-cost as possible. But whether you’re tapping a market opportunity or addressing a social need, it’s important to realize that people living in poverty value quality design. Quality design doesn’t mean that goods and services need to cost more. Quality experiences meet people where they are, acknowledging such important factors as status, aspiration, and dignity.

Designing for the poor is more important now than ever before. It is the future of business growth, as multinationals and local companies are increasingly developing products and experiences that serve not only the upper classes but also the “bottom of the pyramid” — the 4 billion people worldwide living on less than $2 per day.

How can companies serve the legitimate needs of the poor not just for price but also for status, aspiration, and dignity?

Web | PDF

Art of Observing?

“The real act of discovery consists not in finding new lands, but in seeing with new eyes” – Marcel Proust

I was reading “The Anthropologist” chapter from “The 10 faces of Innovation” and the above quote, which was at the beginning of the chapter essentially summarized it. I think the key to understanding human behavior, which is an essential attribute of design research is observing. What does it really mean?
I think usually, we see things. Observing is different. It is seeing things, the Avatar style (or maybe Psych style). Observing will lead to empathizing. When we empathize, we won’t design for them, but we design for us. Learning to observe takes practice. Observing is usually straight forward but removing the mind blocks and conditioning we have taught ourselves is usually the hardest part. Observing needs curiosity, wonder, objectivity and most importantly patience.
Saying that “I observed” is akin to saying “I truly understand”.

Design Research Topic

First design research class with Serota was tonight. Yay! “Research” may not sound fun on the surface, but I love design research because it’s so much about being observant and getting to know people and trying to understand and empathize with why they do the things they do. It’s also cool that I can dust off and re-use the fun parts of journalism and oral history that I’ve picked up in the past.

I’m also pretty excited about our topic. (Can you guess what it is from the video below?) I’m really interested in what people think about the act, and why they do it or not, and how they perceive the systems currently in place.

The Fun Theory: Bottle Bank Arcade

My Favorite Design Process Visualization

Every design firm (and many individual designers) have their own version of  “The Design Process Graphic.”  Jon showed his yesterday in our first class, and Laura walked through hers today during our second.  I thought I’d add to the conversation and share my personal favorite process graphic, the Design Squiggle that’s used by the California-based firm Central:

Central Story Design Process Squiggle

I like how up front it is about the messiness that’s inherent in the design process.  Most design process graphics are much cleaner and structured, though most designers will readily tell you that it’s an idealized version of the process.  With the Design Squiggle, you don’t have to make that caveat. It lets you inform the client immediately that the journey won’t be straight forward, but that if you trust the process, good results will come out of it (and you back that up with concrete stories of success).

If you’d like to see a collection of other interesting process graphics, Nathan Cooke has a great collection on his blog.  Anyone else have a personal favorite?

Designers find and connect the dots

In high school I dabbled in lots of mediums: photography, video production, web design, graphic design, fine art and other things. I remember being frustrated that as a freshman at college I was suppose to pick one of these disciplines to focus on for the next four years.

Then I found the industrial design program. I saw all kinds of creations tumbling out of department: photographs, videos, 3d models, and more. I instantly knew that it was the major for me.

As I got deeper into the curriculum I found out that not only did industrial designers create in every medium, we also borrowed methodologies from an ever wider range of professions.

A primary focus of my education was using contextual research, personal interviews, and other techniques developed by anthropologists to observe and understand how people used products and the personal relationship that people form with the things they use and experience.

One of the foundational classes that I’ll be taking this quarter is Interaction Design Research and Synthesis (taught by the fabulous Lauren Serota) which builds on a lot of this stuff. I’m very excited about spending time sharpening my skills and looking at all of this stuff anew. This definitely one of the skills I haven’t been using near as much as I could.

First class is tonight, I’ll let you know how it goes!

A tangent on education

This probably serves as a huge tangent as we discuss “Role and Responsibility” in the next couple of weeks, but I think education is a key factor in creating today’s and tomorrow’s consumers. It may even offer a way to break the consumptive cycles. At the very least, it’s one of the “levers and pulleys” operating on the system.

Sometimes I have a hard time talking about things I am passionate about such as design, such as education, such as sustainability. They are BIG, and they need to CHANGE. but I cannot yet talk passionately and authoritatively about how or why.

AC4D’s theory classes will be a kicking bootcamp for researching issues, formulating strong opinions, and practicing how to argue a point effectively. Part of it is just learning the language, learning more words in order to be able to think about things in new ways. Part of it is getting into the habit of following up research with synthesis into new ideas. I can read all the articles, blogs, and tweets I want, but if I continue to merely re-blog and re-tweet and re-summarize, I neither internalize what I am reading to remember it, nor can I formulate my own point of view, nor do I contribute anything new to the dialogue.

I do think I am a smart critical thinker, and I naturally try to connect ideas from various arenas, yet why do I feel so unconfident about presenting my views to a public audience? Shouldn’t this kind of thinking be taught and practiced and embedded into K-12 education, not to mention college? How can we leave university without having internalized the role of critical thinker?

I posit this is largely because today’s classrooms still propagate the “banking system” of education. That’s an idea made popular by Paolo Freire, and here is a quick simplified synopsis of that part of Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed. In the “banking system,” teachers are still regarded as the experts with all the answers as well as all the questions, and the students are the empty vessels or accounts that need to be filled with deposits of information. This leads to passive (often lecture-style) one-way transmissions of information. Freire argues for a problem-posing process that includes dialogue between teacher-students and student-teachers as they communicate, create, and interact with the world around them to enable all the parties involved to learn.

  • How did you learn how to swim? Cook? Use email?
  • What things have you learned from a textbook? From a Powerpoint? From a lecture?
  • What ingredients or actions are necessary for you to truly learn and connect with new information?

Imagine the TRUST that would need to happen on all levels to break the habits of the current system! (Interestingly, the current system was heavily influenced by innovations in mass production—notably the assembly line model—when it was created.)

Then imagine the world if nearly everyone who went through our public education system had been given agency, critical thinking skills, voice, and the habit of constantly questioning their world in order to learn from it and shape it…

There are parallels between the design process and critical thinking. One could even argue that to go through the process of design is to think critically about a certain problem to arrive at a solution. It would even seem that teaching design thinking would be a way to teach critical thinking. Kids need these skills in addition to creative confidence—especially if we want them to be productive citizens who will constantly push for change and (gasp!) question authority instead of mindless consumers who accept and perpetuate the status quo.

During tonight’s class, we also discussed the similarities and differences between Art, Science, and Design. Some consider Design as a melding of Art and Science, but can it not also its own distinct liberal art? Why can’t it be taught as a foundation and earlier, in K-12 education?

One big problem is that the “banking system” is still so prevalent in public education, even if most education majors read Freire at some point in their training. You can’t teach design through lectures and textbooks, so we can’t fit design projects into the current curriculum.

Let’s flip that around. We need to teach design by having students “learn through doing,” so let’s have that shape how we teach. Maybe getting design thinking into classrooms would provide new models of education for the entire system.

Can we design a society without the Taliban?

As Scott mentioned in his post, part of the focus of class today was consumerism, and design’s role in shaping it.  The discussion reminded me of a fascinating and controversial statement I heard recently regarding the role of consumerism and Western culture in creating an environment that encourages radicals and fundamentalism.

I was listening to a Philosophy Bites podcast interview of American moral Philosopher Susan Neiman, who said

“The [clash between fundamentalist religion and more secular values] is as big a problem in Arkansas as it is in Afganistan […] and we in the West who are not fundamentalist need to look at what we’ve done wrong such that fundamentalists are on the rise.  This is not to excuse the Taliban or Sarah Palin or any of those people whatsoever, but it is to say that we of progressive, Western values need to look at what we’ve done wrong so as to provoke this kind of reaction, and I think we’ve done a lot wrong.

“The rampant consumerist culture that suggests ‘he who dies with the most toys wins’ is understandably going to provide a kind of backlash.  I think a lot of the move towards fundamentalism in different cultures is an attempt to say “No, actually I want my life to mean something more than that, I want to be guided by certain ideals of the way the world should be.” […]  If we continue to see fundamentalists as irrational idiots or if we look at them as cowardly, weak-kneed people who can’t understand how to live in the modern world… then we are lost, because the criticism of consumerist, contemporary culture is in many ways a valid one.” (Transcribed from the podcast)

Though controversial, I find her claim that the pendulum swing of fundamentalism is due, at least in part, to consumerism to hold a ring of credibility. Certainly the search for meaning is a powerful human motivator, and viewing fundamentalists as rational agents searching for meaning is a more mature and hopeful viewpoint.  I can think of no immediate way to validate her hypothesis, but I would welcome suggestions.

Assuming her hypothesis to be true, though, the big question for us is whether designing meaningful interactions (instead mindless consumer experiences) could create a more moderate and peaceful society.  Further, is it enough to simply design more meaningful interactions, or do we need to aim for a more fundamental shift in our culture?  How would we approach that?