Happy quadruple one! I have resolved to start blogging again this year, to outlet experiences, thoughts, reflections, hopes, expectations along my personal and professional journeys through life, and to channel them through writing, which had hopefully reached its all-time low productivity in 2010.
I did try putting matters into words, but it was awfully difficult, not because of a writer’s block, but more as an outcome of – what dawned on me while reading Aronowitz’ “Against Schooling” – the lack of time and space to create. 2010 was a busy year, as I plunged into what was then a new job: developing and managing quality improvement program for schools in remote parts of Sumatra. Between overutilization of my finite time and limited brain power and underutilization of my best skills, I was mostly left exhausted and uninspired on weekday nights and weekends. “We are all so busy doing things that we never have time for thinking,” summarizes Aronowitz (2008: 58) in a chapter entitled “The World Turned Upside Down – Again” in the previously quoted book.
In this brilliant less-than-eight pages short essay, Aronowitz starts by highlighting the problems of the globalized world – from millions of displaced people unabsorbed by available employments, the availability of less fulfilling jobs despite supposedly better skilled and more intellectual labors, the requirement of lifelong learning as a result of insecure employments, and the strengthening and overpowering of capitalism on almost all public domains. He argues that the need to provide and create alternatives to globalization as a hegemonic system (and other hegemonic systems for that matter) is unfortunately unaddressed in schools: the need to gain self-knowledge vis-a-vis the world-at-large, to know the histories of the self and of humankind, and to have the time and the space to reflect, to invent and to create.
Let’s carve out the time and the space it takes in 2011 to reflect, to invent and to create, in order to find “what the alternatives are to simply accepting things as if they were natural (Aronowitz, 2008: 57).”
Showing posts with label creativity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label creativity. Show all posts
Saturday, January 01, 2011
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Efficiently Creative | Creatively Efficient
Recently, an article in Business Week mentioned the clash between creativity vs. efficiency in 3M, (used to be?) known as one of the most creative companies in the world. Even more recently, another article from the same source discussed Frank Gehry’s Stata Building at MIT which mentioned as well the clash between creativity vs. efficiency in the context of space.
Being trained as an architect by quite a few MIT grads who studied under modernist architects who studied under masters of form follows function, I must admit that as much as I preach creativity and admire its products, I still find it difficult to enjoy buildings such as Gehry’s Stata Building and Experience Music Project. I can intellectually admire the process of thinking and experimenting which Gehry has dwelled on for decades, but my sensibilities have been tainted by years of training that, for better or worse, has made me aesthetically and logically biased.
Maybe that’s why I’m better off not practicing as an architect, as I can’t overcome the guilt that someone else has to pay for my experimentations. Or perhaps I should overcome this guilty feeling and experiment on efficiently creative or creatively efficient spaces. Or the two words are simply a paradox?
Being trained as an architect by quite a few MIT grads who studied under modernist architects who studied under masters of form follows function, I must admit that as much as I preach creativity and admire its products, I still find it difficult to enjoy buildings such as Gehry’s Stata Building and Experience Music Project. I can intellectually admire the process of thinking and experimenting which Gehry has dwelled on for decades, but my sensibilities have been tainted by years of training that, for better or worse, has made me aesthetically and logically biased.
Maybe that’s why I’m better off not practicing as an architect, as I can’t overcome the guilt that someone else has to pay for my experimentations. Or perhaps I should overcome this guilty feeling and experiment on efficiently creative or creatively efficient spaces. Or the two words are simply a paradox?
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Western Lords, Frustrated Artists, and Pigeon-Holed Workers
Several weeks ago I went around some cities to visit arts and design industries, communities, and schools. I thought the visits to the universities would be most interesting, but as it turned out, the visits happened towards the very end of the week so most of the schools were rather quiet and one was in dilapidated condition. Nothing was happening.
The arts and design communities, though, were buzzing with a lot of energy. And at both Common Room and Kedai Kebun, we had lively discussions which accidentally, both ended up with rather heated tones when the topic on the role of academics and universities in developing arts and designs came up.
Most academics and universities, according to these frustrated, albeit otherwise very successful artists and designers in their own rights, were not actively involved in the communities. Many of them even accused academics as being backward thinkers, conformers, and bureaucrats who simply didn’t keep up with the way of the world, and were the very actors who kill creativity in the young. They were the very reason why the artists and designers communities started in the first place.
Meanwhile, visits to arts and design industries from the sweatshops to the internationally known ones owned by Westerners, although were very interesting, were very depressing at the same time.
Most Indonesian workers were very skilled in their crafts. And that’s everything that most of them had in store. They wanted to know more about design. They wanted to know more about what would sell. But all they could do was copying exactly as ordered.
And who gained from all this?
The most successful industries were owned by the Westerners. They were the ones who design. They were the ones who know how to market their products. They were the ones who profit from the skills of Indonesian craftsmen. They owned acres of land. They employed hundreds of people. They were lords in modern and supposedly independent Indonesia.
I’m not blaming the Westerners. It’s Darwin’s survival of the fittest world after all.
I’m just asking myself some questions:
When the worlds of schools, practitioners, and industries are so disjointed, how can we start bridging?
When the gaps between the most successful and the barely surviving people are so wide, how can we catch up?
Where do we start?
ADDED:
For more in-depth analysis of the successes in the industries owned by Westerners vs. those owned by Indonesians, see Designing Ideas.
The arts and design communities, though, were buzzing with a lot of energy. And at both Common Room and Kedai Kebun, we had lively discussions which accidentally, both ended up with rather heated tones when the topic on the role of academics and universities in developing arts and designs came up.
Most academics and universities, according to these frustrated, albeit otherwise very successful artists and designers in their own rights, were not actively involved in the communities. Many of them even accused academics as being backward thinkers, conformers, and bureaucrats who simply didn’t keep up with the way of the world, and were the very actors who kill creativity in the young. They were the very reason why the artists and designers communities started in the first place.
Meanwhile, visits to arts and design industries from the sweatshops to the internationally known ones owned by Westerners, although were very interesting, were very depressing at the same time.
Most Indonesian workers were very skilled in their crafts. And that’s everything that most of them had in store. They wanted to know more about design. They wanted to know more about what would sell. But all they could do was copying exactly as ordered.
And who gained from all this?
The most successful industries were owned by the Westerners. They were the ones who design. They were the ones who know how to market their products. They were the ones who profit from the skills of Indonesian craftsmen. They owned acres of land. They employed hundreds of people. They were lords in modern and supposedly independent Indonesia.
I’m not blaming the Westerners. It’s Darwin’s survival of the fittest world after all.
I’m just asking myself some questions:
When the worlds of schools, practitioners, and industries are so disjointed, how can we start bridging?
When the gaps between the most successful and the barely surviving people are so wide, how can we catch up?
Where do we start?
ADDED:
For more in-depth analysis of the successes in the industries owned by Westerners vs. those owned by Indonesians, see Designing Ideas.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Selling UK
This past week, British Council Indonesia has posted several advertisements in Kompas about the upcoming IYCEY (International Young Creative Entrepreneur of the Year) Music Awards. Indeed, the end of this month all the way through April will be a busy time for British Council. The Education UK will be promoting UK universities in Jakarta and Bandung, and Love and Money Exhibition, will be presenting works of 25 UK designers in Jakarta.
What’s all these buzz about?
British Council is well on promoting UK, with the intent of selling the idea that UK is the center of creative industries, defined it seems according to John Howkin's Creative Economy. In the next several years, they will have completed several programs, which altogether will strategically sell this idea. When you think of creative industries, you will think of the UK, and vice versa. All grounds relating to the creative industries will have been covered by these programs: they are working with Indonesian government, educational and professional institutions, arts, crafts and design communities, NGOs, aspiring young artists and designers.
As I am currently freelancing for the British Council, I get to scoop a little more into their plans, and I am very much impressed by how strategic and well the institution and the country work. It occurs to me that this conference I attended at the beginning of this year was part of the same effort, sponsored by UK’s Higher Education Academy. And so it goes all around the world through the British Council.
If this effort continues well, America will have to watch out about losing its dominancy, if not in developing countries throughout the world, then maybe in Indonesia. In comparison with other countries like France, The Netherlands, and Germany who have centers to promote their cultures in Indonesia through CCF, Erasmus Huis, and Goethe Institut respectively, with the exception of AMINEF that promotes US education, the United States doesn’t seem to bother with promotion and exchange of cultures. Perhaps the US doesn’t feel the need to do much promotion at present, considering most top universities around the world are currently in the US. But how long would this last?
The only concern I have with UK’s promotion is the definition being used for creative industries that is narrowly correlated with arts and design industries. It could mislead to the perception that other fields of study are not and can not be correlated with creativity. I prefer, rather, the definition of creative industries by Richard Florida in his The Rise of the Creative Class.
What’s all these buzz about?
British Council is well on promoting UK, with the intent of selling the idea that UK is the center of creative industries, defined it seems according to John Howkin's Creative Economy. In the next several years, they will have completed several programs, which altogether will strategically sell this idea. When you think of creative industries, you will think of the UK, and vice versa. All grounds relating to the creative industries will have been covered by these programs: they are working with Indonesian government, educational and professional institutions, arts, crafts and design communities, NGOs, aspiring young artists and designers.
As I am currently freelancing for the British Council, I get to scoop a little more into their plans, and I am very much impressed by how strategic and well the institution and the country work. It occurs to me that this conference I attended at the beginning of this year was part of the same effort, sponsored by UK’s Higher Education Academy. And so it goes all around the world through the British Council.
If this effort continues well, America will have to watch out about losing its dominancy, if not in developing countries throughout the world, then maybe in Indonesia. In comparison with other countries like France, The Netherlands, and Germany who have centers to promote their cultures in Indonesia through CCF, Erasmus Huis, and Goethe Institut respectively, with the exception of AMINEF that promotes US education, the United States doesn’t seem to bother with promotion and exchange of cultures. Perhaps the US doesn’t feel the need to do much promotion at present, considering most top universities around the world are currently in the US. But how long would this last?
The only concern I have with UK’s promotion is the definition being used for creative industries that is narrowly correlated with arts and design industries. It could mislead to the perception that other fields of study are not and can not be correlated with creativity. I prefer, rather, the definition of creative industries by Richard Florida in his The Rise of the Creative Class.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Ownership of Ideas
For several months now, I have been contributing to The Jakarta Post with a colleague, friend, and boss of mine, Kayee Man. After a while we thought that maybe not many people read our articles, as we got very few responses from our readers. But some days ago, I checked my office email address, which is forwarded to my personal email, and found an email that was sent back in July 2006 and apparently got into my personal email’s ‘spam’ folder because it had no subject.
The email was both pleasantly surprising as well as rather shocking because the sender was none other than the author of “Creative Economy”, John Howkins, who read one of our articles “But … That was My Idea” and wrote a rather angry email saying that we were wrong in that ideas should not be owned. Apparently Howkins is also the president of Adelphi Chapter, which aims to “ensure that everyone has access to ideas and knowledge, and that intellectual laws do not become too restrictive.”
Baffled by the thought how our ‘neutral’ article could trigger such a strong response from author of a book we quoted, I responded to Howkins’ email asking him why according to him ideas should not be owned, because clearly authors (of books, articles, designs, ideas) would like to and should get credits for their intellectual brainchild. So where is the misalignment?
I explained to Howkins that in Indonesia, respect for authorship of ideas and due credits for authors could not be over emphasized. The international copyright law is highly abused in Indonesia because Howkins’ book, for example, costs more than a sixth of minimum salary in Indonesia – which makes his book and most imported books highly inaccessible for most members of this society. If the international copyright law isstrictly maintained in Indonesia, very few could have access to development of ideas and knowledge from other countries.
This ‘inadequacy’ and ‘casualness’ about copyright of books, however, in my opinion should not extend towards ‘inadequacy’ and ‘casualness’ about copyright of ideas. In Indonesia most people are rather casual about authorship of ideas that plagiarism can be found in many forms.
But it is difficult to blame it on anyone coming out of Indonesian conventional education to know that we are supposed to write down the name of the people we quote and the sources of our quotations. How could we when we are often asked by our teachers to write about a reading without having to differentiate whether what we write is our own thoughts and interpretations of the reading or simply rewording or even blatant copying from the book.
What I learned, though, is that most people – even the very famous ones – would gladly share their ideas, presentations, or even workshops if only we ask them politely and credit them properly in our adaptations. Giving people their due credits not only promote 'good work' but improve your own credibility as a person.
Similar to how my stance in this matter is originated and influenced by my own background and the society I’m living in, it seems that Howkins’ stance in this matter seems to likewise originated and influenced by his own background and environment.
Kayee (English-born Asian) noted that prominent English education leaders seem to have this inkling towards patenting their ideas. Examples of them being Edward deBono (famous for his Six Thinking Hats and Lateral Thinking) and Tony Buzan (famous for his Mind Map), who both attach their personal names to their expression of ideas, profit from trainings and have endorsed trainers to distribute their ideas.
Compare them for example with prominent American education leader like Howard Gardner(famous for his Multiple Intelligences) whom has website through which you can download some of his papers – for free. No wonder Howkins is so adamant about too restrictive ownership of ideas.
The email was both pleasantly surprising as well as rather shocking because the sender was none other than the author of “Creative Economy”, John Howkins, who read one of our articles “But … That was My Idea” and wrote a rather angry email saying that we were wrong in that ideas should not be owned. Apparently Howkins is also the president of Adelphi Chapter, which aims to “ensure that everyone has access to ideas and knowledge, and that intellectual laws do not become too restrictive.”
Baffled by the thought how our ‘neutral’ article could trigger such a strong response from author of a book we quoted, I responded to Howkins’ email asking him why according to him ideas should not be owned, because clearly authors (of books, articles, designs, ideas) would like to and should get credits for their intellectual brainchild. So where is the misalignment?
I explained to Howkins that in Indonesia, respect for authorship of ideas and due credits for authors could not be over emphasized. The international copyright law is highly abused in Indonesia because Howkins’ book, for example, costs more than a sixth of minimum salary in Indonesia – which makes his book and most imported books highly inaccessible for most members of this society. If the international copyright law isstrictly maintained in Indonesia, very few could have access to development of ideas and knowledge from other countries.
This ‘inadequacy’ and ‘casualness’ about copyright of books, however, in my opinion should not extend towards ‘inadequacy’ and ‘casualness’ about copyright of ideas. In Indonesia most people are rather casual about authorship of ideas that plagiarism can be found in many forms.
But it is difficult to blame it on anyone coming out of Indonesian conventional education to know that we are supposed to write down the name of the people we quote and the sources of our quotations. How could we when we are often asked by our teachers to write about a reading without having to differentiate whether what we write is our own thoughts and interpretations of the reading or simply rewording or even blatant copying from the book.
What I learned, though, is that most people – even the very famous ones – would gladly share their ideas, presentations, or even workshops if only we ask them politely and credit them properly in our adaptations. Giving people their due credits not only promote 'good work' but improve your own credibility as a person.
Similar to how my stance in this matter is originated and influenced by my own background and the society I’m living in, it seems that Howkins’ stance in this matter seems to likewise originated and influenced by his own background and environment.
Kayee (English-born Asian) noted that prominent English education leaders seem to have this inkling towards patenting their ideas. Examples of them being Edward deBono (famous for his Six Thinking Hats and Lateral Thinking) and Tony Buzan (famous for his Mind Map), who both attach their personal names to their expression of ideas, profit from trainings and have endorsed trainers to distribute their ideas.
Compare them for example with prominent American education leader like Howard Gardner(famous for his Multiple Intelligences) whom has website through which you can download some of his papers – for free. No wonder Howkins is so adamant about too restrictive ownership of ideas.
On Motivation and Excellence
On Monday, I met with my students from last semester and chatted a bit. Two issues came up.
The first one is their confession that they are unmotivated this term – to whom I would refer to “Incentive to Learn” posting, which may not change their motivations, but I hope would make them think twice and realize that education is a shared responsibility.
The second issue has to do with what I would refer to as the drive to excel. Because of lack in time they have for designing, they mentioned that many of them ended up doing it just for the sake of completing the assignment (and get it over with). One of them unconsciously ended up with similar detail, although her intention was different.
Both issues make me think about what makes people tick. What makes (some) people have the drive to excel? What makes (some) people try to push themselves further and better (when it is probably easier to repeat after their own or even after other people’s successes without anyone else ever find out) despite the fact that perhaps few people other than themselves would notice any difference or even progress? What makes (some) people try to be ethical and do 'good work'?
I thought the answer has to do with an article I co-wrote a while back: Drive to Excel. But perhaps there is more to this.
The first one is their confession that they are unmotivated this term – to whom I would refer to “Incentive to Learn” posting, which may not change their motivations, but I hope would make them think twice and realize that education is a shared responsibility.
The second issue has to do with what I would refer to as the drive to excel. Because of lack in time they have for designing, they mentioned that many of them ended up doing it just for the sake of completing the assignment (and get it over with). One of them unconsciously ended up with similar detail, although her intention was different.
Both issues make me think about what makes people tick. What makes (some) people have the drive to excel? What makes (some) people try to push themselves further and better (when it is probably easier to repeat after their own or even after other people’s successes without anyone else ever find out) despite the fact that perhaps few people other than themselves would notice any difference or even progress? What makes (some) people try to be ethical and do 'good work'?
I thought the answer has to do with an article I co-wrote a while back: Drive to Excel. But perhaps there is more to this.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Fresh Angles (from a Sick Bed)
I had been pretty much bedridden with fever for three days since Tuesday – which I used as yet another excuse to read non-work related books. The first one is a continuation of Junichiro Tanizaki saga: “The Secret History of the Lord of Musashi” [1], and the second one is a science book my friend dropped for another friend, but which I confiscated out of necessity at least for the time being: Richard Dawkins’ “The Selfish Gene”.
By the title and the cover, their difference couldn’t be starker. Yet, upon finishing Tanizaki and starting Dawkins, it is their similarity that is most striking: it is how each author deliberately set up their work by looking at an old issue from a “fresh” angle (the books are written in 1931 and in 1976 respectively, thus the quotation marks capturing the word fresh).
Tanizaki experimented on how most Japanese history books were traditionally written: very matter of fact, focusing on the male figures, leaving out the role of females and the private lives of the heroes. In “The Secret History”, Tanizaki created a novel precisely where these history books left off: by looking into the private lives of the heroes, and focusing specifically on the role of females in making ‘history’. He even went as far as fabricating two historical sources he quoted over and over throughout the novel. The result is a bizarre yet comical, ahistorical yet wildly imaginative, piece of literature [2].
Dawkins in “The Selfish Gene”, on the other hand, presented Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and the famous ‘survival of the fittest’ with a new light by asking a question: survival of what? Is it the species, the group, the individual, or the gene? The title obviously gave out Dawkins’ version: it’s the survival of the gene. So that takes care of the third word of the title. The second title word, selfish, represented his other unorthodox argument: that human beings are innately selfish, not, as many would like to believe, altruistic [3].
Not completely convinced how significant a fresh angle can be?
In the preface to 1989 edition of the book, Dawkins, an etymologist and a professor of zoology at Oxford University, illustrated his intent to present a new angle in presenting the theory of evolution by using the metaphor of the Necker cube. In his own rather long words:
By the title and the cover, their difference couldn’t be starker. Yet, upon finishing Tanizaki and starting Dawkins, it is their similarity that is most striking: it is how each author deliberately set up their work by looking at an old issue from a “fresh” angle (the books are written in 1931 and in 1976 respectively, thus the quotation marks capturing the word fresh).
Tanizaki experimented on how most Japanese history books were traditionally written: very matter of fact, focusing on the male figures, leaving out the role of females and the private lives of the heroes. In “The Secret History”, Tanizaki created a novel precisely where these history books left off: by looking into the private lives of the heroes, and focusing specifically on the role of females in making ‘history’. He even went as far as fabricating two historical sources he quoted over and over throughout the novel. The result is a bizarre yet comical, ahistorical yet wildly imaginative, piece of literature [2].
Dawkins in “The Selfish Gene”, on the other hand, presented Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and the famous ‘survival of the fittest’ with a new light by asking a question: survival of what? Is it the species, the group, the individual, or the gene? The title obviously gave out Dawkins’ version: it’s the survival of the gene. So that takes care of the third word of the title. The second title word, selfish, represented his other unorthodox argument: that human beings are innately selfish, not, as many would like to believe, altruistic [3].
Not completely convinced how significant a fresh angle can be?
In the preface to 1989 edition of the book, Dawkins, an etymologist and a professor of zoology at Oxford University, illustrated his intent to present a new angle in presenting the theory of evolution by using the metaphor of the Necker cube. In his own rather long words:
“This is a two-dimensional pattern of ink on paper [and now pattern of dots on your computer screen], but it is perceived as a transparent, three-dimensional cube. Stare at it for a few seconds and it will change to face in a different direction. Carry on staring and it will flip back to the original cube. Both cubes are equally compatible with the two-dimensional data on the retina, so the brain happily alternates between them. Neither is more correct than the other. …
I now think that this metaphor was too cautious. Rather than propose a new theory or unearth a new fact, often the most important contribution a scientist can make is to discover a new way of seeing old theories or facts. The Necker cube is misleading because it suggests that the two ways of seeing are equally good. To be sure, the metaphors gets it partly right: ‘angles’, unlike theories, cannot be judged by experiment; we cannot resort to our familiar criteria of verification and falsification. But a change of vision can, at its best, achieve something loftier than a theory. It can usher in a whole climate of thinking, in which many exciting and testable theories are born, and unimagined facts laid bare. The Necker cube metaphor misses this completely. It captures the idea of a flip in vision, but fails to do justice in its value. What we are talking about is not a flip to an equivalent view but, in extreme cases, a transfiguration.”
Richard Dawkins, “The Selfish Gene”, Oxford University Press, New Edition, 1989: xviii-ix.
Note:
[1] If you’re wondering where is the best place in Jakarta to get Japanese novels, you definitely should go to Periplus in Sudirman Place. They sell Japanese novels from Rp. 15.000,- to Rp.40.000,- per book! Not sure if this is applicable in other Periplus outlets, though.
[2] His other essay within the same book that I haven’t read, “Arrowroot”, is apparently based on actual historical accounts.
[3] I’ve only read about a quarter of the book, so can’t quite elaborate yet on the specifics of the book.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Intuition to Dwell
Last term, I taught architectural design studio in which students were challenged to create personal space for themselves. Piece of cake, as we all have innate spatial ability as discussed in this previous posting – right? But as it turned out, not many students could create space that was in the least comfortable. I tried to go in and out of some of their constructions, and I could have broken or hurt my neck or other parts of my body if I weren’t mindful.
So why is it, while human ability to gauge and utilize space is innate, yet, most architectural students (at least those I’ve worked with) are having a hard time creating space?
Several possible reasons, but I’ll start with one: the lack of trust in the realm of our intuition. When we learn about a subject matter in university, suddenly the subject we’re interested in becomes a discipline with fields of “experts” that we consider know better about the discipline. The theories, lectures and discussions - some of which we may understand, but more often make us feel even more incompetent - overwhelmed our senses. The result is the lack of trust in what we see, what we feel, what we hear, what we touch, what we taste. We lose our intuition, our innate human ability, and belief in self.
That’s the reason why I am fascinated by construction of space created by traditional communities, by those living in adverse conditions, by those who adapted spaces and constructions of every day life to fit their needs. Through them, we are reminded why space is designed in the first place: to shelter and comfort our body. To be our third skin. Apart from that, these type of constructions are most likely constrained by available materials, by their surroundings (the site), and therefore attempt to create the most optimal solution for the problem.
The child in this photograph could have slept in many other places other than in the cart. Yet, the cart was the optimal solution for the problem. The cart raised the child’s body from the asphalt road – removed her from heated asphalt and dirt, from being accidentally trampled on, and from being awakened by animals that might have wondered by her. The cardboard box provided her with added cushion to support and comfort her sleeping body. And she can still be supervised by an adult who brought her there in the first place. The most optimal solution for taking a nap in public place.
A classic book in this topic is “Architecture without Architects” by Bernard Rudofsky.
So why is it, while human ability to gauge and utilize space is innate, yet, most architectural students (at least those I’ve worked with) are having a hard time creating space?
Several possible reasons, but I’ll start with one: the lack of trust in the realm of our intuition. When we learn about a subject matter in university, suddenly the subject we’re interested in becomes a discipline with fields of “experts” that we consider know better about the discipline. The theories, lectures and discussions - some of which we may understand, but more often make us feel even more incompetent - overwhelmed our senses. The result is the lack of trust in what we see, what we feel, what we hear, what we touch, what we taste. We lose our intuition, our innate human ability, and belief in self.
That’s the reason why I am fascinated by construction of space created by traditional communities, by those living in adverse conditions, by those who adapted spaces and constructions of every day life to fit their needs. Through them, we are reminded why space is designed in the first place: to shelter and comfort our body. To be our third skin. Apart from that, these type of constructions are most likely constrained by available materials, by their surroundings (the site), and therefore attempt to create the most optimal solution for the problem.
The child in this photograph could have slept in many other places other than in the cart. Yet, the cart was the optimal solution for the problem. The cart raised the child’s body from the asphalt road – removed her from heated asphalt and dirt, from being accidentally trampled on, and from being awakened by animals that might have wondered by her. The cardboard box provided her with added cushion to support and comfort her sleeping body. And she can still be supervised by an adult who brought her there in the first place. The most optimal solution for taking a nap in public place.
A classic book in this topic is “Architecture without Architects” by Bernard Rudofsky.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Does Design Matter?
I was struck by this photograph of a child published in Kompas (19 September 2006, p.3). She was sleeping in a cardboard box in a cart. And I thought to myself: how fit she was to the space she occupied. This photograph proves that the ability of human to gauge and utilize space is innate. Human also has high capacity to adapt. When we are tired, we will immediately scan our surrounding to look for places where we can sit: a chair, a step, a fallen pole, an upside down drum, a stone. And when we can’t find anything, the earth would do.It seems that our survival instict will enable us to adapt to any kind of spaces we are in. Under adverse condition, as in the case of the homeless, people will find a way out and think creatively – see here for another example.
And I wonder: does (architectural) design matter?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
