M: Experience Flow Modeling | Dovetail Table | De Bende | DesForm
Links:
The project had a very strange start. I was excited to work with Kees for my graduation, but I found it difficult to find a concrete topic for my graduation project as I work best reacting onto something that intrigues me. Without constraints, it proved difficult to find a subject for my project. I eventually settled on the redesign of door from an idea of poetics that could find a place in this everyday project, and it was Kees' idea to merge this direction with a project for the city gates in Siena. Kees started the idea of doing a project in Siena together with Teun. Before we could really start to develop this project, he passed.
Teun and me decided to continue the project after talking to John Zimmerman. We realized that on one hand, if Kees believe that we could've made something great in Siena, we could still do it. Secondly, he helped us realize that, if were interested in doing this type of installation work professionaly, we should seize the opportunity to become involved with such a project, building it from the start. Although we would not have Kees's vision or negotiation skills, it would give us an opportunity to develop these ourselves. As I had started to realize this was the type of design work I want to move in to, I started to believe in the project again, as did Teun, and we decided it deserved to be continued.
We started to investigate the state of the project that Kees had been telling us about, only to find that it was only starting to develop. The city gates project he had been preparing with Patrizia Marti at the University of Siena was too big for us two. So Patrizia suggested to involve prof. Marcello Flores and create a project revolving around the different perspectives on Human Rights.
We reacted upon her short proposal by delivering our interpretation of the opportunities we saw in this project. In this document we gave our first ideas as a reaction on the short proposal Patrizia sent us. We wrote down our first thoughts as to how the subject of Human Rights could find a place in the design of lighting installations. Considering our identity's and strengths coming from this department, we indicated that we saw a interesting direction for the project in making experiential interactive installations that would put visitors "in the middle" of the topics.
As we realized the inherent difficulty in translating such abstract values into physical designs, our first exercise was to try to translate the abstract, theoretical values presented in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights into experiential installations through pressure cookers.
For the first one, we decided to focus on a more general principle that was recurring in many of the Human Rights: freedom of movement. We created a "prison" of light, that was intimidating and felt imprisoning to the viewer, as lights turned on eye level wherever the visitor looked. This first exploration started to show us how to translate values into experiences. One of the key realizations at this point related to the different angles an installation or experience can have: the experience could enforce the freedom (giving people the freedom to move), or it could turn the freedom upside down as we did in the pressure cooker. By taking away the freedom to move, visitors are confronted with the feeling this gives.
The next step was to delve further into the content of the project. We met with prof. Marcello Flores, the client for the project and responsible for the master's in Human Rights and Genocide studies in Siena. We discussed his ideas of the project, and tried to give him a better understanding of our approach and capabilities. Furthermore, we discussed the content, and the ways in which we could get a grip on it. Finding it difficult to work with the specifics and overlap of the separate articles, we decided to focus on the 4 freedoms as delivered by Roosevelt in his famous speec: Freedom from want and fear, freedom of religion and expression in addition to our Freedom of Movement. As they were important precedents to the Human Rights Declaration in 1948 and embodied the main themes put forward in the specific articles of the declaration.
The 5 pressure cookers produced very much mixed result. Some were better than others, and each of them embodied a different direction (abstract versus concrete translations of the value, experiential versus more communicative). For example, the freedom from want is one of the stronger expressions, as it very clearly denies someone some food, something everyone can relate to. The freedom from fear is rather plasticly portrayed in the first two clips, where fear is turned into the form of some kind of security system. In the third fear video, we turn the content around: rather than to induce fear, we give the visitor the responsibility to reduce fear for another party and protect it (a lighter). In the freedom of religion, we aimed to portray a sense of communal and tolerate religious believes that should co-exist in harmony. Again a more literatal translation of this very difficult to express value. Lastly, in the freedom of expression we went into a different direction: small LEDs attached to parachutes would be released into the world, giving people the opportunity to use this light however they wanted. Although this concept lacks a bit in depth, they behavior of these different light sources chaotically finding their way through space I think does express this value on a purely aesthetic level. It made me realize that the aesthetics of light(sources) itself also need to be investigated, purely on themselves.
We discussed these in Siena (Janurary 10/11) with the stakeholders Patrizia Marti and prof. Flores. It became clear that they were very hard to understand, even as starting points of discussion, mostly so to prof. Flores. It became clear that his expectations lay more in the traditional field of communicative, multi-media exhibitions as opposed to more experiential installations. Reflecting upon this I realized that, although it was good to show real work to a client with a hard time imagining the result of the design process, we should've better framed these concepts as part of the process and possible directions. I have realized that this will be a recurring point of attention. Communicating this type of project to so many different stakeholders with mixed backgrounds requires a very tactful and smart approach. We need to consider this at every point of communication during the process, as to allow for a better understanding of what each stakeholder's expectations and sentiments are.
Furhtermore, we should have a much clearer idea of exactly what WE want to do with the project. Although we have the conceptual lead for the project, we have a hard time taking, and keeping, this lead. Simply because we lack confidence as well as understanding of these situations and negotiations, to steer them pro-actively and clearly towards our intended end goal. Although we need to be respectful and open, we need to develop a clear vision of where we see the project going, and not be too easily influenced by other's remarks in meetings.
Attempting to mary the more traditional and communicative expectations of Marcello and Patrizia, with our experiential ideas and expertise, we drafted a new proposal that would involve our installations as the focal points within a more traditional, communicative exhibition about Human Rights. In reflection, I would say that this meeting went better than the first, as we took much more control over the agenda and discussions in the meeting. Clearly stating the options regarding the space and content from our perspective, and the consequences and preferences towards choices. This immediatly resulted in a much more focussed meeting, although we still had trouble in steering the decision process when it went deeper into the content of the project.
Visiting the city and meeting the stakeholder's face-to-face was also a very crucial step. It re-affirmed for me the need for direct contact, as well as to achieve more depth in the understanding of the real context and physical space of the project goal. Seeing the city, learning about its history (especially in relation to Human Rights, for example through the Good Governance fresco in the Palazzo Publicco) also start to develop a feeling towards the installation and ties the content deeper within the location.
[One of the two similar spaces in which the exhibition/installation will be developed]
I now realize that these experiences are, in addition to a skill one learns and develops as dealing with clients, also a conflict between two ways of working: the rationalist and descriptive way of a historian versus the interactive experiential way of a designer. Interestingly enough, this heavily relates to underlying themes within the DQI discourse. Ambra Trotto has agreed to become an expert for the project, and I think her experience in bridging this gap, as well as the cultural one, will be very crucial, in addition to her experience in working with the topic of Human Rights.
Besides the challenges we face in defining the project with so many stakeholders from very different backgrounds, it is interesting to see that I am starting to understand this process little by little. Learning how to prepare the communication towards a stakeholder in the most effective way, or learning to be confident enough to make demands or suggestions. However, this process is one of small steps; every meeting leads to a new realization of how to better approach the next one. I do however realize that this is a process that takes a long time to master, and will continue throughout my professional career.
Reflecting on the process so far, I think it is interesting to see the parallels and differences with other TU/e project I have done. Similair to those projects, it follows the Reflective Transformative Design process. However, it is much more challenging than these other projects. We are constantly readjusting the project to move towards a more and more final goal. Moving back and forward between abstraction, analysis and creation. This is a logical consequence of the complexity in stakeholders and their backgrounds and not to mention to very abstract and complex topic of Human Rights. I expect this to add very much depth to my understanding of the design process towards the end of this year.
As we move further in the project, developing concrete final concepts, this heavy focus on communication will I think shift towards that of teamwork, rather than a stakeholder/client relationship. We will have support from students from different backgrounds (engineering, communication design, human rights studies) and to direct and make the best use of these facilities will force me to further develop my skills in leading a design team.
It is difficult to reflect thoroughly on this project as it is still so very much underway in some respects. Part of this also has to do with the lack of consistent coaching we have received along the way. The coaching started with Rombout, moving to Jon and now Philip. This is in no way a attempt to blame anyone, as I also feel this has forced me to exhibit the skills I have learned in self-directing my learning and development. However, the lack of project feedback makes it more difficult to reflect, as it could've applied me with more handles regarding another perspective on my actions and experiences on this project.