I am beginning the process of starting my thesis for my Master's in Design.
The first step is figuring out what topic to pursue.
I have known since I started graduate work that I want to investigate accessibility in Museums.
I am meeting with several people over the next few days to narrow this enormous filed down to a singular topic.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Monday, October 11, 2010
Toronto Mayoral election
We are having an election in a couple of weeks. Our city councillors, school trustees and Mayor's positions are all up for grabs.
Our current mayor is stepping down, and there appears to be a reactionary backlash to the way the City has been run for the past 8 years.
The backstory on this is that we had a buffoon named Mel Lastman running the City previously- one who seemed to collude with the right wind provincial government and who brought in the army when Toronto was hit by an unprecedented snowstorm that clogged the City up for a few days. His wife was charged with shoplifting while he was in office, he disavowed any knowledge of two out of wedlock sons of his from a extramarital affair (one looks like he could he his clone) and, the prize- when SARS hit Toronto, which overran hospitals with patients and all kinds of panic, the WHO imposed a travel ban to Toronto. Mel had no idea who the WHO was.
David Miller rode in substantially on the shoulders of the Unions in Toronto, and they screwed him for it with a crippling garbage strike. This election will likely be the undoing of the Unions because of it. Because we will get another idiot in office. The frontrunner at this point is Rob Ford- an obese right wing financeer whose platform is to cut costs. Not sure if he has anything resembling a vision for the City, he just wants to deal with finances. Also not sure what happens to the CFO of the City because Ford intends to take the reins.
The anger and venom the man spews- anti bike, anti marathon, anti homeless people. Pro car, pro highway, pro mini council. Just to save money and make it easier for the suburbs to have access to the City.
Why? I ask. If the suburbs are so great why do people need to come downtown at all? For culture- no, there will be none under him. For sports - likely, so long as there are big parking lots downtown because everyone apparently need to drive to games. For fitness- not if he's the symbol that we look up to. He is obese, a blowhard and leans so far to the right that we may end up in Québec.
I support Joe Pantalone because he has a vision, believes in greening the city, stands up for those who society tramples upon and understand municipal politics. He attends sessions and debates, is on committees and has a loyal constituency.
I fear for this City if Ford wins. We already had pro developer Art Eggeleton who allowed the Harbourfront to be overwhelmed with construction blocking the lake and its access by people. We had Lastman who made Toronto a laughing stock.
Let's have someone with vision now.
Vote for Joe Pantalone.
Our current mayor is stepping down, and there appears to be a reactionary backlash to the way the City has been run for the past 8 years.
The backstory on this is that we had a buffoon named Mel Lastman running the City previously- one who seemed to collude with the right wind provincial government and who brought in the army when Toronto was hit by an unprecedented snowstorm that clogged the City up for a few days. His wife was charged with shoplifting while he was in office, he disavowed any knowledge of two out of wedlock sons of his from a extramarital affair (one looks like he could he his clone) and, the prize- when SARS hit Toronto, which overran hospitals with patients and all kinds of panic, the WHO imposed a travel ban to Toronto. Mel had no idea who the WHO was.
David Miller rode in substantially on the shoulders of the Unions in Toronto, and they screwed him for it with a crippling garbage strike. This election will likely be the undoing of the Unions because of it. Because we will get another idiot in office. The frontrunner at this point is Rob Ford- an obese right wing financeer whose platform is to cut costs. Not sure if he has anything resembling a vision for the City, he just wants to deal with finances. Also not sure what happens to the CFO of the City because Ford intends to take the reins.
The anger and venom the man spews- anti bike, anti marathon, anti homeless people. Pro car, pro highway, pro mini council. Just to save money and make it easier for the suburbs to have access to the City.
Why? I ask. If the suburbs are so great why do people need to come downtown at all? For culture- no, there will be none under him. For sports - likely, so long as there are big parking lots downtown because everyone apparently need to drive to games. For fitness- not if he's the symbol that we look up to. He is obese, a blowhard and leans so far to the right that we may end up in Québec.
I support Joe Pantalone because he has a vision, believes in greening the city, stands up for those who society tramples upon and understand municipal politics. He attends sessions and debates, is on committees and has a loyal constituency.
I fear for this City if Ford wins. We already had pro developer Art Eggeleton who allowed the Harbourfront to be overwhelmed with construction blocking the lake and its access by people. We had Lastman who made Toronto a laughing stock.
Let's have someone with vision now.
Vote for Joe Pantalone.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Warrior Emperor exhibit at the ROM
Visiting the Warrior Emperor and the Terracotta warriors exhibit this week at the ROM was a great view to an amazing individual.
Qin Shi Huang was the emperor in question, and although he appeared to be autocratic and cruel, unified China geographically (and repressed cultural differences in the process), and standardized script and many forms of measurement.
The tomb figures and items in the exhibit are from the famous 'mausoleum' grave of the emperor. Thousands of figures, horses, dogs, cooking and cultural objects were fashioned from clay, or kept in the original bronze in a gigantic grave that looked from photos like it was as least as big as a couple of football fields.
I wish that someone would photoshop the photo of the archeological find - the Chinese have housed it a domed building and it seems like all these warrior guys are standing around in a warehouse waiting to go somewhere. The impressiveness of the array of the warriors gets diminished by the skylights and metal joists etc in the building's photos.
The exhibit itself, although crowded (maybe I shouldn't have gone in the early afternoon) was well laid out. The environmental feel, which was affected by the colour and lighting in particular, kept a reverence and dynamism coincidentally. Because the ROM's exhibition hall has diagonally placed columns, the dynamic in graphic panels and banners that were made for this exhibit was well sync'd with the architectural dominance of these. The entry graphics with the many faces of the warriors gave a sense of the overwhelming nature of the diversity of people that the emperor ruled. As warriors they would have had the military allegiance - re-enactment footage bore this out- but one can always see the person who is unique, in the faces.
The section graphics were powerful and contemporary, giving a lovely foil to the textural simplicity of the terracotta objects.
One very poignant object that struck me was a door frame carved with beautiful decorative elements. It made me somewhat wistful, wondering what out society would be like if we actually treasured the capacity of our artists to affect our environment- if someone took the time to carve a contemporary door- not some Indonesian knock off- and spend the time to appreciate what they were doing so that others could do the same for decades afterwards. We don't spend the time, people shop at the Brick and IKEA and consume their physical environment like an expendable commodity. Maybe what it means is that the well crafted items will be the only thing that survives- skewing the interpretation of who we are to misinterpret us as aesthetically caring! Has this happened in our view of cultures past?
Qin Shi Huang was the emperor in question, and although he appeared to be autocratic and cruel, unified China geographically (and repressed cultural differences in the process), and standardized script and many forms of measurement.
The tomb figures and items in the exhibit are from the famous 'mausoleum' grave of the emperor. Thousands of figures, horses, dogs, cooking and cultural objects were fashioned from clay, or kept in the original bronze in a gigantic grave that looked from photos like it was as least as big as a couple of football fields.
I wish that someone would photoshop the photo of the archeological find - the Chinese have housed it a domed building and it seems like all these warrior guys are standing around in a warehouse waiting to go somewhere. The impressiveness of the array of the warriors gets diminished by the skylights and metal joists etc in the building's photos.
The exhibit itself, although crowded (maybe I shouldn't have gone in the early afternoon) was well laid out. The environmental feel, which was affected by the colour and lighting in particular, kept a reverence and dynamism coincidentally. Because the ROM's exhibition hall has diagonally placed columns, the dynamic in graphic panels and banners that were made for this exhibit was well sync'd with the architectural dominance of these. The entry graphics with the many faces of the warriors gave a sense of the overwhelming nature of the diversity of people that the emperor ruled. As warriors they would have had the military allegiance - re-enactment footage bore this out- but one can always see the person who is unique, in the faces.
The section graphics were powerful and contemporary, giving a lovely foil to the textural simplicity of the terracotta objects.
One very poignant object that struck me was a door frame carved with beautiful decorative elements. It made me somewhat wistful, wondering what out society would be like if we actually treasured the capacity of our artists to affect our environment- if someone took the time to carve a contemporary door- not some Indonesian knock off- and spend the time to appreciate what they were doing so that others could do the same for decades afterwards. We don't spend the time, people shop at the Brick and IKEA and consume their physical environment like an expendable commodity. Maybe what it means is that the well crafted items will be the only thing that survives- skewing the interpretation of who we are to misinterpret us as aesthetically caring! Has this happened in our view of cultures past?
Monday, May 17, 2010
Unecessary noise
I was driving south along Yonge St north of St Clair just before noon yesterday (Sunday May 16 2010). There was a speed trap for the northbound traffic, and cars in my (southbound) lane were all slowing when they saw the police with the radar gun. At the top of the hill we were heading towards, a police car was stopped in the southbound lane, and about 5 cops were outside the car talking, casually joking around. They had stopped in a very inopportune spot, and I had to make a fairly sudden stop to switch lanes. Two cars had to stop quickly behind me. I could hear one squeal his tires. His windows were open and he honked - he was pissed off.
As I managed to get into the other lane, three of the young cops walked out onto the street to stop the honking car as it approached. I could hear one of the cops mutter "Unecessary noise" to another. Presumably they stopped the car and ticketed him.
It was ridiculous - they had chosen a stupid place to stop, inconveniencing many drivers, and when they were called on it, they were taking offensive action. Really dumb.
As I managed to get into the other lane, three of the young cops walked out onto the street to stop the honking car as it approached. I could hear one of the cops mutter "Unecessary noise" to another. Presumably they stopped the car and ticketed him.
It was ridiculous - they had chosen a stupid place to stop, inconveniencing many drivers, and when they were called on it, they were taking offensive action. Really dumb.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Vandana Shiva
I saw Vanada Shiva speak at OCAD on March 18, 2010 in Toronto. The auditorium was packed to the rafters, I luckily got spots for my friend and me, just on time.
Dr Shiva was brilliant- charming, funny, factual and passionate. She has a number of projects and is an activist on many behalfs - the seed project she is behind are foresightful and will ensure that people will be able to eat in the future, despite the commodification of food for profit by large scale corporations.
She helped me re-establish a commitment to thinking about the food I eat, and to try to influence my family's process of buying and consuming. The return to vegetarianism!
I laud her amazing energy and will continue to support her efforts.
http://www.vandanashiva.org/
Dr Shiva was brilliant- charming, funny, factual and passionate. She has a number of projects and is an activist on many behalfs - the seed project she is behind are foresightful and will ensure that people will be able to eat in the future, despite the commodification of food for profit by large scale corporations.
She helped me re-establish a commitment to thinking about the food I eat, and to try to influence my family's process of buying and consuming. The return to vegetarianism!
I laud her amazing energy and will continue to support her efforts.
http://www.vandanashiva.org/
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
new media in Museums
I went to part 2 of a 'Storytelling in exhibits' series at the Design Exchange on Monday night (March 29 2010).
Three speakers were there- Dave Hollands from the ROM, Pat Hanson from gh3, and Brigitte Shim from Shim Sutcliffe. Dave was the star, he really knows his stuff, is empathetic and clearly sees the future in museums and access by the public. I have to admit to disappointment with the other two speakers, they designed galleries for their first time, and it made me inpatient to see some of what they did, how they did it , and the results.
Although there doesn't seem to be a planned 'new media strategy', the ROM has certainly stepped up to the plate in its new media offer. The ROM is very aware that people are carrying technology around with them, in the form of mobile devices that have cameras, video capability and texting options. Information is being transmitted with an immediacy unanticipated even when the ROM recently renovated. They are using various photo websites, creative commons usage for photos and commentary, and uncommissioned members of the public are creating 'renegade podcasts' of things they do and see at the ROM.
This phenomenon is providing unforeseen 'partnerships' that are changing the model for museums everywhere. No longer the reserved domain for commentary by post doctoral scholarship, the pressure on the ROM is to both accept the fact of content generation by anyone who cares to spend the time, but also to provide excellence in presentation, information, access, programs and above all access to learning.
My chief area of concern for most museums is that they lack real texture in their presentation. By this I mean that they assume people will engage through a very restrictive style of access to the 'goods' on display. That is generally through a little label, often crafted by someone who has a specialized knowledge of the object, and amazingly, often without really looking at the object to unravel the mysteries of what it presents with its public face.
Objects speak - to an aesthetic, to a sociology, history, quirkiness sometimes, to its own materiality and function. The best exhibits understand that objects can stimulate curiousity and wonder. Being able to interact, even in a minimal way, allows for greater engagement, and engagement allows for additional learning.
More next time......
Three speakers were there- Dave Hollands from the ROM, Pat Hanson from gh3, and Brigitte Shim from Shim Sutcliffe. Dave was the star, he really knows his stuff, is empathetic and clearly sees the future in museums and access by the public. I have to admit to disappointment with the other two speakers, they designed galleries for their first time, and it made me inpatient to see some of what they did, how they did it , and the results.
Although there doesn't seem to be a planned 'new media strategy', the ROM has certainly stepped up to the plate in its new media offer. The ROM is very aware that people are carrying technology around with them, in the form of mobile devices that have cameras, video capability and texting options. Information is being transmitted with an immediacy unanticipated even when the ROM recently renovated. They are using various photo websites, creative commons usage for photos and commentary, and uncommissioned members of the public are creating 'renegade podcasts' of things they do and see at the ROM.
This phenomenon is providing unforeseen 'partnerships' that are changing the model for museums everywhere. No longer the reserved domain for commentary by post doctoral scholarship, the pressure on the ROM is to both accept the fact of content generation by anyone who cares to spend the time, but also to provide excellence in presentation, information, access, programs and above all access to learning.
My chief area of concern for most museums is that they lack real texture in their presentation. By this I mean that they assume people will engage through a very restrictive style of access to the 'goods' on display. That is generally through a little label, often crafted by someone who has a specialized knowledge of the object, and amazingly, often without really looking at the object to unravel the mysteries of what it presents with its public face.
Objects speak - to an aesthetic, to a sociology, history, quirkiness sometimes, to its own materiality and function. The best exhibits understand that objects can stimulate curiousity and wonder. Being able to interact, even in a minimal way, allows for greater engagement, and engagement allows for additional learning.
More next time......
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Doing good deeds with design?
Last night I attended a lecture at OCAD in Toronto. Speaker Debera Johnson from Pratt spoke about the future of design education. She is grounded in her values to use her skills to help others, and to help others find skills to help others.
There is a Centre for Sustainable Design Studies at Pratt that is interdisciplinary, allowing students from arts and science backgrounds to cooperate in projects. Some are fantastic, good design, offering great options for people in the environment and health care.
It all looked good to me until one project came up. Pratt works with a local neighbourhood and has come up with some urban planning options that will allow for a safe environment, street furniture the people can make themselves (but designed by Pratt students) inexpensively etc. It is aimed at reducing truck traffic through the area, and the proliferation of prostitutes who hang out to service the truckers.
Although it seems like a good idea, and the renderings make it look like everybody's happy afterwards, it smacked of a kind of colonialism to me. The values are positive that are brought to the community - creating sustainable products, good planning (which does not appear to have been done to begin with) and potential employment.
Bu who are they - or we - to foist this on a community?
Much like early Christian missionaries, who had clear values and felt that if they brought all these good things to people in other countries, that they would have better lives, the design school seems to believe that bringing what they think is important into this community is what's best for the community. No question that most of us would agree. But most of us aren't living in that community.
I was compelled to ask what efforts Pratt makes to bring in thought and people from the ground up - in other words, have projects instigated by a community, and co-created by them.
On Pratt's site, the costs listed are about $US50,000 per year to attend school.
This appears to be a fairly select group of people who can afford to enter this program. Deb did say that they are creating some scholarships, but there was no clarity about how many or how people are recruited into the program from the 'user group' for the projects.
I fully recognize that they are doing something that's Very Good. But it seems that doing these projects may not get to the core problems. It seems a bit like more of the same, not deep diving Design Thinking, just creating new solutions for a fraction of what the problems are, and doing it top down.
There is a Centre for Sustainable Design Studies at Pratt that is interdisciplinary, allowing students from arts and science backgrounds to cooperate in projects. Some are fantastic, good design, offering great options for people in the environment and health care.
It all looked good to me until one project came up. Pratt works with a local neighbourhood and has come up with some urban planning options that will allow for a safe environment, street furniture the people can make themselves (but designed by Pratt students) inexpensively etc. It is aimed at reducing truck traffic through the area, and the proliferation of prostitutes who hang out to service the truckers.
Although it seems like a good idea, and the renderings make it look like everybody's happy afterwards, it smacked of a kind of colonialism to me. The values are positive that are brought to the community - creating sustainable products, good planning (which does not appear to have been done to begin with) and potential employment.
Bu who are they - or we - to foist this on a community?
Much like early Christian missionaries, who had clear values and felt that if they brought all these good things to people in other countries, that they would have better lives, the design school seems to believe that bringing what they think is important into this community is what's best for the community. No question that most of us would agree. But most of us aren't living in that community.
I was compelled to ask what efforts Pratt makes to bring in thought and people from the ground up - in other words, have projects instigated by a community, and co-created by them.
On Pratt's site, the costs listed are about $US50,000 per year to attend school.
This appears to be a fairly select group of people who can afford to enter this program. Deb did say that they are creating some scholarships, but there was no clarity about how many or how people are recruited into the program from the 'user group' for the projects.
I fully recognize that they are doing something that's Very Good. But it seems that doing these projects may not get to the core problems. It seems a bit like more of the same, not deep diving Design Thinking, just creating new solutions for a fraction of what the problems are, and doing it top down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)