November 22, 2006 at 10:22 AM · Filed under Uncategorized
Leonardo Education Forum
Thinking vs. Making
Thursday, February 15, 12:30 PM–2:00 PM
West Ballroom, 3rd Floor, Hilton New York
Chair: Gabriel Harp, University of Michigan
View this session in context
Abstract:
One of the challenges that has always confronted artists is figuring out how to develop a successful formal realization of a concept, in other words, how to bridge the gap between thinking and making. This dilemma is particularly problematic for creative work at the interface of art, science, and technology, which must satisfy multiple sets of criteria that may be at odds with each other. In science, for example, a great deal of emphasis is placed
on internal consistency (forming hypotheses, building models, comparison, confirmation, etc). The arts, by contrast, have their own criteria for evaluating their conceptual and formal realization, which, are arguably equally demanding, although they are not as systematically defined.
How can interdisciplinary practitioners fulfill the requirements of science and engineering, while simultaneously producing works of art that succeed in satisfying aesthetic criteria? What projects have been successful both scientifically and artistically and can serve as examples of best practices, methods, and processes for addressing these challenges? How can mentors help
students and early career professionals develop integrative behaviors and apply them to hybrid research? What emerging forms of curricula might support more transdisciplinary training? This mentoring session for graduate students and emerging professionals will focus on specific strategies in these areas. Participants include Gabriel Harp, Mariah Klaneski, and Josh
Levy (Co-Chairs), Eddie Shanken, Andrea Polli, Amy Ione, and TBA.
November 22, 2006 at 2:48 AM · Filed under Uncategorized
The goal is to try to understand what it means to think, design, and act with empathy towards the recipient(s) of our solutions. The recipient in this case is me- as you are all engaging in a critical dialogue of the work with regard to my intentions for it. How does a collaborative arrangement facilitate this? What steps are required to reach consensus?
My aim is to extricate myself from the process so as to see better what possibilities exist beyond my own sphere of influence. Thus, I rely on you all to take the tasks as your own- as if they were your own.
Guiding questions:
WHAT NARRATIVE/STORYLINE CAN I USE TO STRUCTURE AND THE EXPERIENCE AND INTERACTIONS ONE HAS WITH THIS STRUCTURE?
HOW IS THAT NARRATIVE REALIZED WITHIN THE UPPER AND LOWER HOUSES (SEE BELOW) THROUGH A COMBINATION OF PROJECTION, PERFORMANCE, SCULPTURE, INTERACTION OR OTHER SENSORY GESTURES?
I will have the structure set up in the common space…
(left)Model of the structure showing the intersection of a plane dividing the upper and lower houses. The lower house is on the right in this image and is the larger of the two.
A table taking into account and classifying multiple frameworks for the project can be useful for making connections and building analogies across disciplines and constituencies.
The readings are taken from The Order of Things: an archaeology of the human sciences (Foucault 1970), Politics of Nature: how to bring the sciences into democracy (Latour 2004), and The Semantic Turn: a new foundation for design (Krippendorf 2006).
Reading them in reverse order may be useful if you are pressed for time.
The plan is this (1 HOUR):
Initial organization and task articulation (5 min): Identify tasks to complete; identify strategy(ies) to use to complete the tasks (I suggest the method outlined starting on page 247 of KRIPPENDORF); identify groups (upper/lower house).
Time for additional questions (5-10 min): What else do you need to know?
Design solutions (20-25 min): individually / in teams
Present solutions (20-25 min): present solutions / discussion
KRIPPENDORF outlines the method (re: narrative) I would you to use if possible.
LATOUR outlines the story that the narrative should construct.
FOUCAULT outlines the history and philosophy that the story finds itself situated within.
(left and below) Multiple views of the proposed structure.
