Response to "A Skateboarder's Guide to Architecture or an Architect's Guide to Skateboarding" and "Learning from Las Vegas"

     In "A Skateboarder's Guide to Architecture or an Architect's Guide to Skateboarding", the author raises the question, what is the similarity between those seemingly drastically different two activities. The writer suggests that from skaters, architects could learn that the connection between space and program is shaky; the dynamic relationship between architecture and its users should be noted; and that when architects draw up their design, they should think of the possibility of improvisation by the users. On the other hand, "Learning from Las Vegas" suggests the idea of learning from already existing landscape, Las Vegas; about symbol in space before form in space, how commercial signs work as persuasion connect the drivers to the store, et cetra. Both of the writings talk about how architecture could encompass and produce meanings not on the simple outward layer. Between the two writings, the one which left more striking impression on me was "A Skateboarder's Guide to Architecture or an Architect's Guide to Skateboarding" because I thought it cuts to the heart of problems made in Korean architecture of today. In Korea these days, architecture seems to be completely forgetting about how it is actually the real people who live everyday lives that communicate with the buildings and places. Instead, architects and investors simply focus on making the architecture's outward appearance as grand and pompous as possible; which results in architecture that is quite useless and sometimes even inconvenient and harmful to its real users. I think Bobby Young's writing has something to suggest to this tendency in architecture in Korea these days.  

My favorite design

My favorite design the <I love NY> design by Milton Glaser.

This design has been originally made in 1977 to promote tourism in New York City. Ever since, this design has been fervently loved by so many people that it appeared in souvenir shops and brochures throughout the state for years, and the white t shirts with this logo printed on it sold with major success and widely circulated the appearance of the image which turned it into a commonly recognized symbol.

People from all over the world have loved this design for its simplicity and its style, and I also do like it very much. However, that is not the reason I have picked it as my favorite design.

After the September 11 terrorist attacks on the New York city, Glaser created a modified version of this design to commemorate the attacks, which wrote “I love NY more than ever” with a little black spot on the heart symbolizing the world trade center site. The black spot approximates the site’s location on lower Manhattan island. The poster was printed in the New York Daily News and was a fundraiser for New York charities supporting those affected by the attacks. Many people have actually been consoled by this design tremendously, and got help of regaining love for their city thanks to this.

I thought, after seeing this, that this is the way that a design should be. This I love NY design was not only made to create financial profits, but to actually touch, and comfort the minds of people who have experienced traumatizing events. There are numerous ideas and theories about design, but more than anything, I think it should be something that is actually “for” the people, and this is the reason I have picked this as my favorite design.

Good Design vs Bad Design

The good design I chose was a water filter from Britta. The design of the filter is very simple, and when one looks at it, he or she could understand the method of using it. All one has to do to filter the water is to just open the cover and put water in it. Also, on the cover of the filter, there is a little reminder which shows when to change the filter to a new one. I thought this was very useful for the users since one is really apt to forget such things, and not changing filters on time could do harm to the user's health.

The bad design I chose is a sign post at the bus station. In seoul, the map of the route of the bus in the station does not show which direction the bus is going. So in order to find out the direction of the bus, one has to look it up in the smartphone or ask it to people nearby. One citizen who recognized this problem started putting little arrow shaped sticker on some of these posts in order to help other citizens find their way. The city of Seoul, when hearing this, honored the person as a good citizen but did not do anything afterwards to change the posts. It is a design that is very inconvenient, not accomplishing its role of helping citizens to find their way at all.

Poster of Tomorrow

Posters are made to convey strong impression to its viewers; whether its goal is to promote a product or a movie, or to convey a specific message. Posters of nowadays mostly achieve this by visual components such as color, shape, and lines. However, one other component that is capable of leaving strong impression to the passerby is the sense of smell. When connected with specific images, fragrance is capable of making people of that specific moment. From this, I thought that in the future, posters may be able to be connected with fragrances.

For example, when one passes by a poster for advertisement of an air freshener, the fragrance of the product may be smelt. A poster for a chocolate cookie ad will produce smell of hot chocolate cookie. This will make the effect of advertisement much more effective, for when people pass by and smell the sweet fragrance, their tempt to go and buy the product will increase dramatically.

My Manifesto

Design Manifesto: Vorticism

Response to Shaughnessy

Response to <The myth of originality and the joy of copying>

     In his writing, Shaughnessy is expressing his rather radical looking ideas about copyright, originality, plagiarism, and ownership. He asserts that there is no such thing as something that is purely original and creative; that every little created thing is a derivative version of a classic, tradition or other themes and shapes already prevalent in the existing culture. He also insists that copyright is an idea that was created in order to produce profit in a society of a capitalist ideology and that copyright which has been made in this manner is often absurd, and prevents free and active interaction of ideas; thus inhibiting more creation.

     I agree to most of the basic lines of his idea about copying and copyright, and that the idea of copyright is not something that is holy but it was created in order to make profit in the capitalist society. However, even though I agree with him so, I thought that just reading this short piece of writing of his, one may be apt to confuse the idea of "copying" with "blatant plagiarism".(which he clearly differentiates in his writing by using this specific term)

     I do think that there is no such thing as a "purely original" creation in the human civilization. Every theme, idea, shape, plot, and archetypes has been derived from a classic or an ancient sculpture. However, even though these consisting factors may have its root from somewhere else, I thought that the creator's(it may be an artist, writer, etc.) act of how to combine these in which specific way in what specific historical and culture background to convey what kind of specific ideas is where actually "originality" comes from. Reading only this short essay may make people to think, "if there is no originality in the world, then are all paintings and novels a same thing?". However, it is not accurate to say so. Shakespeare has borrowed plots from classics and myths, but it does not make Shakespeare's work to be the same thing with the classics; because he has used these classic works as materials and combined them in specific and delicate ways to create his work and it has succeeded to made its own specific effects. Delicate appropriation such as where to put the period or selecting a specific adjective from many to express beauty produces differences and viewers feel that difference, and I think this is where actually "originality" comes from. Millions of love poems may all sing about love, but their form, selection of words, and the moods it creates makes them different from each other. If this "difference" is too minute or insignificant, I think that's when the viewers feel the work is plagiarism of other work. Of course the boundary between this is very vague, and still a controversial problem and needs to be talked of more. Nevertheless, I think it is very dangerous to say that all soap operas, cartoons, or poems are the same thing for the reason that they are actually all have derived from the same idea or topic. Newton has received his idea of principle of gravity from the "active principle" of alchemy tradition, but his founding of principle of gravity is something very original. He has used already existing ideas and applied it to another field of life to create something different and this is what creativity is. Shaughnessy's essay does not make this point clear in this specific writing, and may not call it "original creation" for he puts great emphasis on the idea of "copying the original". However, from the point that he differentiates "copying" with "blatant plagiarism" I think I could infer that he shares similar idea with the definition of positive creation. And I think, when one succeeds in creating special, striking effects by using already existing tradition as sources, that's where "creativity" lies.