Thursday, November 12, 2009
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Spider Man
Here are the first arm sketches that I've done of my first Chimera. I'm not sure which one I like the most.
Alessi Design
The “Italian Style” article was extremely short, but it was also interesting. It was about Alberto Alessi, a product designer, whose family has long been in the design business. For centuries, the Alessi family has designed house wares that have been used throughout Italy and the rest of the world. They have, in fact, been designing for so long that they even have an Alessi Museum containing an archive of all the designs they have created. The author makes a point to mention, “nothing much has changed” in the years that the Alessi family has been designing.
What I find interesting about Alessi design is the method used to create their products. Everything that they create is developed through a process of experiments. The “Alessi Way” claims to design by a laboratory approach. By conducting experiments to create the best design, a fusion of art and science takes place. The Scientific Method is used to create the most desirable result. I have always found this process of creativity very useful in my own work as well, particularly with the 3D animations and models that I create.
What is particularly fascinating about the “Alessi” approach though, is that functionality does not come first in their considerations of a design. Aesthetics is thought to be of much higher value than functionality. I find this developmental method of design very strange, especially for product design. Usually, I would think that the functionality of an object would be the primary concern of the artist. This appears to not be the case with Alessi design. Alberto Alessi designs his products by working on the aesthetics of an object first, then through experimentation, discovering whether the object is functional or not. I find this method to be completely backwards. I am unsure of how successful a design technique this could be I cannot imagine how many times Alessi has to go through aesthetic designs just to get something remotely functional out of it. Then again, if Alessi design has lasted through the last few centuries using this process and is still in demand today, it has to at least work for them.
I have worked this way before, valuing aesthetics before functionality. I suppose this technique can be useful in some areas of design. I am using it right now actually on my BFA project for the end of the term. I am creating a character that, at the moment, requires the correct appearance. So, for now, I am working on the “look” of the character. Eventually though, this aesthetic idea is going to have to be modeled and rigged for animation. When that time comes, the idea may not work so well as a rigged, animated character.
I have difficulty though using this method when thinking about product design. The point of product design is to create an object that suits the need of the individual. Usually this is through the success of the functional aspect of the object. An object can be made to be beautiful, but not work half as well as an object built for the purpose of being functional. I do not understand why this design process is valued to Alessi design.
What I find interesting about Alessi design is the method used to create their products. Everything that they create is developed through a process of experiments. The “Alessi Way” claims to design by a laboratory approach. By conducting experiments to create the best design, a fusion of art and science takes place. The Scientific Method is used to create the most desirable result. I have always found this process of creativity very useful in my own work as well, particularly with the 3D animations and models that I create.
What is particularly fascinating about the “Alessi” approach though, is that functionality does not come first in their considerations of a design. Aesthetics is thought to be of much higher value than functionality. I find this developmental method of design very strange, especially for product design. Usually, I would think that the functionality of an object would be the primary concern of the artist. This appears to not be the case with Alessi design. Alberto Alessi designs his products by working on the aesthetics of an object first, then through experimentation, discovering whether the object is functional or not. I find this method to be completely backwards. I am unsure of how successful a design technique this could be I cannot imagine how many times Alessi has to go through aesthetic designs just to get something remotely functional out of it. Then again, if Alessi design has lasted through the last few centuries using this process and is still in demand today, it has to at least work for them.
I have worked this way before, valuing aesthetics before functionality. I suppose this technique can be useful in some areas of design. I am using it right now actually on my BFA project for the end of the term. I am creating a character that, at the moment, requires the correct appearance. So, for now, I am working on the “look” of the character. Eventually though, this aesthetic idea is going to have to be modeled and rigged for animation. When that time comes, the idea may not work so well as a rigged, animated character.
I have difficulty though using this method when thinking about product design. The point of product design is to create an object that suits the need of the individual. Usually this is through the success of the functional aspect of the object. An object can be made to be beautiful, but not work half as well as an object built for the purpose of being functional. I do not understand why this design process is valued to Alessi design.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Monday, November 2, 2009
Chinook Right Turn
Here is the Chinook making a right turn. There are still a few bugs in the animation. They should be out soon.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Baudrillard
Jean Baudrillard may be one of the most difficult reads I have ever encountered. His writing is nearly unintelligible to a point of being cryptic. It took many times reading through the article to understand what he was trying to say. I am still not certain of his exact meaning of the paper. The article also did not have much context to accompany the excerpt, which contributed to its difficulty. With that said, here is what I believe he was trying to say.
Baudrillard is making an argument that mankind has always had a fascination with ‘spectacle’, and our personal selves have often provided this ‘spectacle’. We were once obsessed with mirrors, and the idea of examining ourselves. Now in modern days, that mirror has become the screen. We are now obsessed with any technological object that includes a screen, such as televisions, computers, and cell phones. We want to watch ourselves. He also brings up, in his example of the Polaroid camera, that humanity is more interested in the representation of ourselves via some magical medium than our selves in actuality.
What Baudrillard claims is that these representations through the use of screens are images of ourselves as human beings. We are the images that we see in the screen. Baudrillard’s entire paper debates the same question Rene Magritte states in his famous painting, The Treachery of Images, a portrait of a smoking pipe. “Ceci n’est pas une pipe,” or, “This is not a pipe” is scrolled on the bottom of painting, pointing out that the painting is not a pipe, but a painting of a pipe. It is a representation of the real item, just as a Polaroid photo of an object is a representation of that object itself.
Maybe what Baudrillard is trying to say is not necessarily that we are the representations of ourselves, but that the representations are influencing who we are. We are bombarded with representations of objects, people, and places everyday through many different media. New screens and representations are being developed faster than ever. With humanity’s easy access to computers and television, mankind is over-saturated with the amount of images we see everyday, to a point that we are now completely desensitized. The fact that we are so desensitized means that what is now unconsciously influencing us is what we see in these representations. Do we really see the world around us? Or is it all digitally re-mastered?
I personally do not believe that we as people are the representations of ourselves. Representations are simply images. They are not what they represent. In today’s world, I believe that we are our physical selves. But images are powerful things and we can be influenced by what we see in the ever-growing digital realm. For instance, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (the Columbine High School shooters) were influenced by the violent video games they played. They internalized what they saw. We are capable of internalizing the images that we are exposed to, but I think that most of the population has the social filter to differentiate images from reality.
Baudrillard is making an argument that mankind has always had a fascination with ‘spectacle’, and our personal selves have often provided this ‘spectacle’. We were once obsessed with mirrors, and the idea of examining ourselves. Now in modern days, that mirror has become the screen. We are now obsessed with any technological object that includes a screen, such as televisions, computers, and cell phones. We want to watch ourselves. He also brings up, in his example of the Polaroid camera, that humanity is more interested in the representation of ourselves via some magical medium than our selves in actuality.
What Baudrillard claims is that these representations through the use of screens are images of ourselves as human beings. We are the images that we see in the screen. Baudrillard’s entire paper debates the same question Rene Magritte states in his famous painting, The Treachery of Images, a portrait of a smoking pipe. “Ceci n’est pas une pipe,” or, “This is not a pipe” is scrolled on the bottom of painting, pointing out that the painting is not a pipe, but a painting of a pipe. It is a representation of the real item, just as a Polaroid photo of an object is a representation of that object itself.
Maybe what Baudrillard is trying to say is not necessarily that we are the representations of ourselves, but that the representations are influencing who we are. We are bombarded with representations of objects, people, and places everyday through many different media. New screens and representations are being developed faster than ever. With humanity’s easy access to computers and television, mankind is over-saturated with the amount of images we see everyday, to a point that we are now completely desensitized. The fact that we are so desensitized means that what is now unconsciously influencing us is what we see in these representations. Do we really see the world around us? Or is it all digitally re-mastered?
I personally do not believe that we as people are the representations of ourselves. Representations are simply images. They are not what they represent. In today’s world, I believe that we are our physical selves. But images are powerful things and we can be influenced by what we see in the ever-growing digital realm. For instance, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (the Columbine High School shooters) were influenced by the violent video games they played. They internalized what they saw. We are capable of internalizing the images that we are exposed to, but I think that most of the population has the social filter to differentiate images from reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)