Mental Fiber Optics or Mental Dial-up?

First chapter of Heller’s book: two main categories, the first:*WHO WE ARE SHAPES WHAT WE CREATE:In chapter 1 of Heller’s book, Dutch Social Anthropologist Dr. Geerte Hofstede speaks of human being’s mental inner-workings as being similar to computer software. It seems to me that this concept is totally plausible. Each individual person thinks slightly (or completely) different than the next, and of course, this includes producing art slightly differently too (as part of “who we are” as individuals). What we create (in art, digital art, and elsewhere) is a lot of times a direct reflection of what’s inside us (as well as probably being able to tell which program was used). Basically, I interpreted what the Dr. was saying as; there are a lot of parallels between the processes of human thought, and the processes of a computer program, mainly because humans created the software… however, there are other, less literal ways to look at the concept the Dr. is introducing; drawing from a 3rd source; the article “Software ≠ Interactive” by Jason Aristofanis Tselentis, some people, as part of who they are, seem to be instructor dependent, and are set in their stubborn way of doing things (on a digital level: like a stubborn, annoying computer program). Others seem to be very self-reliant, open to suggestions and independent (like the newer computer programs that are doing more work and saving more time for you automatically than ever before). The concept of the “caliber of software” you’re mentally running seems to have a direct effect on whether you’re an independent or dependent person, and what the good or bad software is capable of creating. The self-reliant designers always seem to have fresh new ideas, and the instructor dependent people seem to be lost in their own heads, and requiring help to get started… and they also seem to be the ones who are responsible for creating designs with little to no variety, or visual interest. Is it possible that some people could have more “advanced mental software” than others? Could certain people still be running Photoshop 7, while others have mentally installed the CS3 Suite? Are certain people still running “mental dial-up,” while others are running “mental fiber optics?” Could certain people be AS PREDICTABLE as certain software programs themselves, in some cases? Maybe some people’s “mental servers” are NOT EVEN CAPABLE of installing/running the “newer/smarter programs… and have no capacity for a “mental upgrade” due to any number of life’s obstacles? Obstacles such as heredity, handicaps (minor disorders like dyslexia), or the temptation to just settle for less? Could this mental block be traced back to laziness, and some people are running slower mental software because they aren’t motivated enough to go out and learn new, updated information? Did you ever know someone who never really listens carefully to instructions, and then always asks you what’s going on later in class? I suppose my question is; are certain people stuck with slow software because of elements controlled by heredity (in other words; the base software they were born with), while others will glide on to a successful career at the top of their class effortlessly? And how much of these successful people were not blessed with really advanced software, and made large advancements by practicing, networking, and an over-the-top amount of effort? Who we are shapes what we make… Can this be a GOOD and a BAD thing depending on how you look at it? If you’re set in your ways (as part of WHO you are), I think you could really be losing a lot of potential for variation, but on the other hand; if you have a very strong work ethic and positive attitude (as part of WHO you are) you could be open to endless life-changing opportunities. Design is a very competitive field, so it pretty much comes down to: who can create the most appealing/appropriate designs consistently, using the most cutting edge software (or else mastering and figuring out new things to do with existing software). The designers who are able to create an artist identity for themselves (through the use of certain color palettes, typefaces, intricate personalized details) will prevail as the professionals. I would say that an Artist Identity is achieved if someone can hold up your work in front of a group of art/design-minded people and almost all of them can guess that it’s your work without seeing a signature, such as Marian Bantjes or Rick Valicenti). Not only were artists (like the ones previously stated) able to dream up the concept and designs, but they were also able to successfully extract it from their minds and put their ideas on paper, and onto the computer (which is at least half the battle). Designers with well-know identities seem to really have a solid grasp on WHO THEY ARE, because their effort and love for what they do can be seen crystal clear in WHAT THEY MAKE. “Who we are” depends on many other variables as well, that then relate back to what comes out of our heads and turned into something tangible or digital (to expand upon all these would be too extensive to fit, they’re just other ways to expand this topic). Some of which include; cultural conditions (quality of life, local resources, war or peacetime etc.), family situation (financial, political views, values, parents career paths; if your parents are an Artist and an Architect, as opposed to a Farmer and a Teacher, for example: Architects seem to run totally different “software” than say, a Farmer would, etc.) So, whether you’re rich or poor, young or old, male or female; We are who we are, and the art that we produce is truly a personalized expression of what’s inside us as designers and as individuals. Who we are shapes: what we make, how we go about making it, and who we are directly effects the final product, after the raw data of design has been filtered through each person’s unique “mental software setup.”  *HOW YOU MAKE SOMETHING DETERMINES WHAT YOU MAKE: Our mental software leaves it’s mark on our design just like computer software does (Heller). It’s not only important to understand what something looks like, but also to understand the instructions that led to it’s creation, and what steps it took to get it there. After a close inspection of an individual’s work, is it possible to retrace the artist’s steps to see how they came to certain conclusions? Such as; why they chose certain design elements, typefaces, certain paper, etc., and how this relates to the fact that people’s brains work uniquely in specific ways. Thus, how can you tell a piece of art was created by a certain person… by picking up on their techniques, habits, and style of presentation…even if that artist has recently tried to steer away from their old habits, some of this energy will undoubtedly still shine through in the final piece. How you make something determines the end quality. You can tell the difference (in almost any medium you can name) between artists who creates something “by the book,” as opposed to “their own version of troubleshooting.” Technical skills, and being technically proficient in your desired medium becomes more and more important as time goes on, and you move further into your career. A fundamental knowledgebase of design, culture, and a vernacular of different eras or time periods can be extremely useful (if the technique used to make the piece is really advanced, then the piece is more likely to be superior). This is pretty much saying that: how you go about the process of any design (no matter how insightful or dull a designer you are) will yield results that fit accordingly, usually dependent on how much time, thought and effort was put into the design…as well as the strategy and technical skills used to achieve the design solution. By this I mean: in which kind of manner you make the design (in a patient, thoughtful manner, or a rushed, anxious manner).  Whether it’s computer software or mental software, they both leave an impression on your work. If using an adobe piece of software is HOW you made a certain project, it could restrain the full potential to WHAT YOU CAN MAKE when compared to a project made with a program many people wouldn’t have access to (I’m sure there are state-of-the-art design programs being created as we speak that haven’t gone public yet). So, with so many designers using the EXACT same programs, new ways to master existing programs and make different art can be very beneficial (HOW it’s made; unique and new = more potential for fresh design). The Dr. suggests the idea about how Italians are known for being able to design ridiculous sports cars that have a certain finesse and unmistakable look about them. Outside the world of graphic design, and into the world of mechanical design; how many variables would there be? I would think the amount of different facilities, tools, materials, and methods to create custom sports cars would be vast, (similar to all the tools and resources in design) but could a sports car incorporate graphic design? Even if you were just doing graphic design on the car, i.e. creating a graphic sticker for aesthetic purposes or for a certain auto company’s logo? What about a car company’s front emblem having a flat screen behind it that plays digital graphics while you drive?????? However, I think the Dr.’s main point is that the system he’s created helps people to figure out: HOW WELL YOU MAKE something (the effort, resources, skill, and dedication you put forth), as well HOW YOU MAKE something (physically, interactively) has a direct effect in the piece’s quality, consistency, uniqueness, as well as overall success.

~ by danmarcson on January 17, 2008.