Culture Isn't Always Popular

winterhouse.com/vancouver/index.html

What is Helfand and Drettel's argument?

Helfand and Drettel's argument is that, instead of learning new aspects of design, students of design in higher education are utilizing what they already know and are being trained more or less to become salesmen; that designers are meant for branding and simply making things look good. As a result of this revelation, designers are not expected to think intellectually about whatever they're designing when combining their talents with whatever objective since it's a brand and only a brand and it sets a tone that says designers don't think, that they aren't intellectual, and that they just have to make things look "pretty".

What is one specific statement you agree with? Why?

"The distinction here is that while such independent work encourages our students to think for themselves, our narrow-minded curricula restrict their capacity to use their minds to truly advance their ideas; And in turn, we limit their ability to advance themselves. " [referring to certain student projects]

I agree with this statement because while I might be satisfied with what I produced as a designer in terms of a project, I utilized what I knew and didn't learn anything. Sure there might have been certain aspects of making something look better that I learned, but I'm doing that already as a student. In other words, I didn't have to "innovate".

What is one specific statement you disagree with? Why?

"Often though, we see voice expressed less as an act of subversive will, and more as a staging of false identity: this work says a lot about designers wanting to be artists, using "design" as a weak metaphor for "art" and expressing their personal experience without practical context or intellectual foundation."

I disagree because I believe that designers are artists. You can have an intellectual foundation to your art and be an artist. I feel like the implication here goes from designers not being intellectual to artists not being intellectual, which slightly contradicts his argument.

How do you think they would define innovation?

The ability as a designer to have an intellectual foundation for the objective and present it as such that people see it as a educational tool before viewing it as a brand.  

Questions about Innovation

What qualifies as "innovation" in your design field?

Innovation in animation usually lies in the raw and natural talent of the animator. Everyone has the same resources, therefore it's up to the animator or in this case a production team; considering that the most public innovation, if any, and probably the most popular is seen through animated feature films.

What types of problems or dilemmas similar to those that Griffith encounters are you aware of in your design field?

Griffith encountered several problems. One problem in particular is the obstacle of time and money. When Griffith was developing new wind turbine planes while innovative, there was no market for them. The idea was invested in, it just wasn't successful. Similarly, in animation, certain feature films take a lot of time and money to be successful. On the flip side, the more time and money you invest into a film, the higher the risk you are taking in terms of profit or success. Consider the 2009 live-action/animated film "Avatar"; a number of innovative visual effects techniques were used in its production. According to Cameron, work on the film had been delayed since the 1990s to allow the techniques and technologies to reach the necessary degree of advancement to adequately portray his vision of the film. Fortunately, unlike in Griffith's case, the project was successful.

How are these problems being solved?

Taking advantage of technological advances in hardware and software no matter the field and apply it as time allows. Griffith as innovative and smart as he is still had to do this.