Lateralization- do musicians hear and artists see differently?

In my biological psychology class today, we started talking about lateralization and how the brain understands input, especially from separate sides of the body.

To make things brief, our professor discussed a study where it was shown that most ordinary people generally enjoy listening to music in their left ear as opposed to their right. Because the input is on the left side of the body, the information is directed to the right hemisphere of the brain. The right hemisphere is responsible for our emotional understanding and expression, so it makes sense that we would find the most initial pleasure by listening with our right brains.

However, professional musicians enjoy listening to music in their right ear. That means it is being heard by the left, and more analytical, hemisphere of the brain. It is suggested, then, that professional musicians may actually listen to music differently than the rest of us. Maybe what appeals to them the most are the technical aspects of the music, the things that they understand and spend a lot of time thinking about... like rhythm, harmonies, syncopation, etc.

So what does that say about professional artists? No studies have been done, that I know of, and it's not quite as simple as music.

Theoretically, artists would enjoy analyzing the technical/intellectual aspects of a work of art while giving less attention to the emotional content. Seeing with the left brain would mean that the image hits the left visual field, or the right side of the retinas. Which means that the image is actually on the right side of what is being seen; the right side of a painting, for example.

There's a catch: because the right hemisphere of the brain dominates the understanding of spatial relationships and it thinks more holistically -- think gestalt -- we might not understand art without that side of the brain. And without understanding it, we can't analyze it or enjoy it. So maybe the same is not true for professional artists.

Maybe, we are more bilateral in our analyzation of art than we think.

It might also help to think about it in ways that describes our difficulty in talking about art. We understand the emotional content and the way it works with gestalt through our right hemisphere, which translates over to our left hemisphere to inform the understanding of strategy and intent. Our language skills are in the left hemisphere, where we are trying to analyze theory and hypotheses as we talk about it. The simultaneous actions in the same hemisphere compete against each other, and make it more difficult to talk about what it means and easier to talk about how it makes us feel.

Importance

I have been challenged to create the best piece I have made for my last project in class. Art is art, and we are relatively unconstrained as far as this final piece goes. But when I challenged the fact that no one can determine the "best" piece so far, especially without knowing each others' past works, I was charged with creating the "most important" piece I have done.

Most important. What is importance? Is what is important to me the same as it is to someone else? Are the similarities between our definitions of important MORE important than the differences? Or are the differences what is truly of importance?

Important, by definition can mean several things.
"Of great significance or value." Talk about totally relative. My values are defined by experience, by personality, and by beliefs and convictions. The significance of something depends on the situation.

"Authoritative; having authority, ascendancy, or influence." I certainly believe that's true. All art takes on the righteous position of having authority and influence. All artists take on the role of teaching someone something, or asking something. Humble though some questions might be, their challenge is an influence on the viewer. Then there are the self-righteous and haughty artists that create for the mere fact that they have the ascendancy, the power, and the voice to say what they want in any way that they want. They become authoritative. Art is, by this definition, important.

"Crucial; vital to the resolution of a crisis." If I were to use this as a definition for the piece, it would be asking much of myself in regards to figuring out what crisis to resolve, and how to go about it. What would it take for me to find some sort of satisfaction about creating? Is there a conflict that arises because of it? And when the answer is yes, as it always is, what do I do?

If importance is relative to any person at any time, what is my definition? And what, personally, does it mean for me right now?

I think that it means thinking.
It means taking chances. It means learning.
It means being experimental and being okay with it.
Not being afraid. Embracing fear.
It means being conceptually and rhetorically solid.
I want to do something that asks questions, that messes with people's minds, that challenges them, that makes them mad or frustrated, that brings out the messiness of thinking that we try to keep to ourselves.

If it's going to be important, it can only be important to me. I can't determine what is important to other people. I can challenge what they view as important-- what they hold as significant or valuable, or what is crucial to resolution of conflict for them. I can objectify importance, I can portray importance, by using imagery directly. I can coerce importance into things that are meaningless. But if it is a piece that is most important, it has to be important to me.

Legislating Morality

I've been reading in my Social Psychology book about attitudes and beliefs, and how it (doesn't) predict behavior. Truly, we end up justifying our behaviors by adjusting our attitudes than the other way around.

But I found it interesting, two days before this presidential election, that I had to think about politics while reading my psych text. A whole section talks about interracial behavior and racial attitudes, and what stuck out to me was the effect of social psychology in our legal system, and then our society in general.

Because to be honest, creating laws that establish and encourage certain behaviors ends up influencing how we, as a nation and a society, create our beliefs and attitudes towards something. Examples? It wasn't until a law mandating seatbelts was instituted that we all eventually found it to be something that was necessary, acceptable, and understandable-- the creation of a law changed our behavior, which made us have more favorable attitudes.

And again-- when desegregation was an issue before the U.S. Supreme Court, social scientists were asked to explain the ramifications. They said that waiting for the public's opinion to change would take a long time-- changing the law gave our attitudes impetus to change more quickly.

"If we legislate moral action, we can, under the right conditions, indirectly affect heartfelt attitudes."

It's not talking about fleeting feelings-- but people's convictions and beliefs.

So with this upcoming election in mind... with any politics in mind, I have to support candidates that support creating legislature that will change attitudes for a better moral community. Enacting laws against abortion might not be a favorable thing now, just as some people opposed the desegregation of schools. But, in essence, it could truly create new perspectives about unborn children and abortion. Our behavior could change our attitude, cultivating a culture of life-- of responsibility and solidarity. We, as a society, and in a general sense, would begin to respect life and reject our current culture of death.

And I have to believe in psychology more than I believe in our political system.

What would happen if we enacted laws that invited immigrants to come to our soil? What if refugees were welcomed with open arms, as mandated by legislature? Would our attitudes about them and their situations change? Theoretically, yes.

I'm interested to see, in my lifetime, what laws are passed and what legislature is created. Hopefully, the majority of it will create situations in which our mindset about many things will change for the better, where attitudes will become more positive or more negative towards specific things in order to create a better community for us all.

I love strawberries

I was fixing lunch today when I realized how much I love strawberries. This jumped out at me before I could even think of another word. :)

How to Raise a Graphic Designer

I might be alone on this, but I have a problem with how graphic designers are raised. I have a problem with the degrading, berating attitude that is promulgated in the design community, especially education. I don't understand where the psychology came from about having to terrify young designers by their own learning process. The whole growth period of a student shouldn't be criticized and punished the way it is in some places. Why are we punished and shamed for not having the BEST solutions or the BEST ideas? When does iteration mean that it's better work? Maybe back when learning design meant cutting type and pasting it, over and over again... the more times you did it, the better it was. More=better. However... I don't think the same is true anymore. I'm not sure it's necessary. Sure, I think it's necessary to think and brainstorm, to evaluate and reconsider things... but the constant demand to do endless amounts of work is draining unless the student is excited about what they are doing. If they feel like they are filling requirements, won't working a design job feel the same way? Won't all the passion and excitement, the innovation and drive be gone?

Maybe I'm wrong. I've been told time and time again that I am. Maybe it is an absolute necessity that you do a billion thumbnails to come up with a billion solutions, so that you have a trillion possibilities for how you can execute something. But maybe not. Maybe THAT method isn't the best. Maybe we should brainstorm some more.


Here's an excerpt from Child Development (5th ed.) by Danuta Bukatko and Marvin W. Daehler. It's on a chapter called "Concept of Self," and even if it speaks about children, I think it's applicable to any student. Especially students that are exploring something new... much like many students that come into design programs- unknowing, expectant, and often surprised by what they find.

"Parents can take several steps to reduce the likelihood that children will acquire a sense of learned helplessness:

1. Avoid frequent criticism and punishment, especially of younger children.
The younger child who is often criticized or punished for, say, being messy or failing to finish a task may be particularly susceptible to the belief that he is "bad." In arriving at this view of his personality, he may have little reason to try to do better or may shun similar challenges to avoid receiving further negative evaluations. This it is important that parents help the child avoid feelings of shame or limited self-worth when evaluating behavior.

2. Motivate effort by identifying positive approaches to problem solving.
As children become older and more knowledgeable, parents and teachers can promote a mastery orientation by emphasizing the various skills and procedures important to success, that is, what children can do to more effectively achieve a goal. Such feedback should help children appreciate the malleability of traits and capacities.

3. Attribute poor performance to factors other than ability.
When a child does perform poorly, a parent's or teacher's evaluation should focus on nonintellectual and temporary factors that may have reduced the child's performance rather than on her intrinsic ability, thereby inspiring effort when the next opportunity arises.

4. View activities as opportunities to learn rather than as tests of ability.
Parents and teachers can encourage children to approach academic tasks as opportunities to learn rather than as situations in which their performance will be evaluated in terms of competence (or lack of competence) (Dweck, 1999; Erdley et al., 1997)."



Maybe a self reflection.... maybe a more generalized view. Hopefully more broad than narrow. But it's just a thought.

Art, Advertising, Plagiarism, and Appropriation

This article has popped up this week on the NYTimes, and was posted on Design Observer as a link as well:

The Image is Familiar; the Pitch Isn't


Strange to me that I was just talking to Jack about this not long ago, and that somehow, in some twisted way, Mia Fineman seems to come to some conclusion that it's just great that advertisers steal artwork for ads because artists appropriate advertising in their artwork: "The cycle of influence goes round and round: Ad agencies borrow from artists who borrow from advertising. Isn’t it great when things just work?"

The fact is, there's a whole huge difference between making ads and making art, and it's not just some full circle thing where everyone is happy.


My question a month ago was this: Why is it okay for artists to plagiarize and copy things, but it's a legal issue for advertising creatives and designers?

And for me, it kind of came down to the fact that artists are considering design and advertising as cultural artifacts, things that ought to be taken as symbolic of a generation, a country, a societal perspective. Advertisers that take artwork, however, are exploiting an idea that was never intended to generate mass revenue. And if you're going to make that much money off of an idea, the original creator of the EXPRESSION of that idea should get credit.

The article says that, "The law governing the unauthorized use of copyrighted images and ideas, he said, is notoriously murky. “Copyright law doesn’t protect ideas, it only protects expression. The question is, where do you draw the line? Is the agency being inspired by the idea? Or did they copy the artist’s expression?”"

We all know what it means to come up with handfuls of ways to express an idea. We get a main concept and then go, one idea about how to visualize it after another. It seems to me that it's pretty obvious when borrowing means somebody else didn't do their homework.

And at the same time, I have to step back and eat my words inasmuch as to say that I agree that sometimes, appropriation just works. Seeing someone's idea done similarly but in a different way is interesting to us all. Taking the expression of one idea and recontextualizing it for the expression of another idea, to make another point entirely-- that really throws some confusion into the mix. And it always seems to come down to the fact that... well, everything has been done. At least some elements of it.

I think our biggest challenge as designers in this time and age and whatnot isn't that we need to figure out how to make everything work as systems, or that we need to learn to communicate most efficiently... because that has been explored and figured out to some extent already. Our biggest challenge is to see a world where so much has been done and try to figure out how to make it ours, make it unique... and how to push it farther than it has already gone.

I hate where I am

And where I am is stuck. I am less motivated to DO design than I am to look at it. I am less inclined to CREATE than to critique. I am far less interested in working on a project than reviewing what others have already done. And I hate every second of it. I hate the frustration, I hate the angst, and I hate the sheer disappointment in myself for not being farther along, more productive, and more achieved than I am.

Little credit is given to creative careers. And yet, those who continually solve problems where the answer is already known are the ones who are seen as the smartest, the most impressive, and the elite. All a physician has to do is prescribe an already known treatment to an already known condition. He appropriates a response to a condition, but nothing is new. No innovation is required. The constant racking of my brain, the desire to find some sort of drive when all I want to do is quit... all of it really sucks. Especially when I know I could be doing something where all the answers exist, all the solutions can be figured out, and it's a matter of knowing which is appropriate, not coming up with something from nothing.

That's supposed to be the fun part, the creative part. And it's killing me slowly; my creative spirit is dying. I hate where I am.

I'm going to start signing my name to tiles!

So though it has been a while since I have posted anything, I have meant to put things from my notes and sketchbook in here. It just hasn't happened, as of yet. Soon, I promise.

But in the meantime, I have to share a story with you.

Dinner tonight, with my family. We're sitting around the table letting one of my sisters entertain us, as she usually does. Granted, as the clown of the family, she's usually pretty bright. She'll be a junior in the fall, and is close to top of her class. She lives up to her blond hair only inasmuch to get a laugh from us now and then. So I reeled when she threw up her hands and said, "OH MY GOSH GUYS. Derek was telling me today that there is some guy that totally signed his name on a urinal in some bathroom somewhere, and they tore it out, put it in a museum, and called it art. I am SO TOTALLY going to start signing my name on bathroom tiles. Maybe I'll be famous!!"

..... No, I kid you not. That is as close to actual quoting as I'm going to get. At some point after that, she looked at me and was like, "Oh do you know who I'm talking about? You know about that guy?" And I groaned as I covered my face with my hands.

The conversation was soon lost after that, mostly because my family has little interest in discussing art, much less the artists... and it was probably an entirely futile subject between bites of chicken and pasta at my family's dinner table.


What I don't understand, though, is why my sister isn't alone in not knowing some basic art history. Because in a visual world, it is art, media, and pop culture that define the metaphors and comparisons that we use constantly. And in knowing about art history, we understand the rest of history in a more concise way-- what people thought about society, how they viewed the government, what they thought about politics and global leaders, how the economy was doing, what social and pop culture items had significance then... the list goes on and on. We ought to be teaching these things, and high school kids should know about the milestones in art because it is a part of culture. And with so much visual ILliteracy, it would greatly benefit all of us to have a better understanding of the images and icons of our past and present.

visiting with Scott Harben

I thought I might share some of the things Scott Harben (website/portfolio) had to say to us when we went to visit this past Thursday. It was really awesome of him to give his time to us, especially in a world where time is money. He was, unexpectedly, highly motivational and inspirational. We didn't expect it because, well, he wasn't asked to be. He just was, with his own passion about what he does.

• There is no reason why you should not have a sketchbook with you at all times. Don't create layouts or sketches with stock photography. That's lazy. Do it yourself. "The computer makes you lazy, lazy as shit." 
• "There are going to be people who will throw shit in your face and tell you, "You can't do that."" Don't listen. "You have to be tenacious. You gotta fight-- you gotta fight for your vision." Clients can't see it, they can't understand. That's why they don't do what you do.
  
• Work with people because of what they bring to the table, not because of their name or notoriety. You want to give people the opportunity to bring something to the table. You need to inspire everyone around you.
• "I have won every award but a Lion. But I don't own a single one. They don't mean shit to me. Because they're about what I have already done, not what I'm going to do next."
• Keep your art. Have an out, a creative release for dealing with frustrations and routines. Advertising can be rough, and you have to have some way to deal with it-- that way can't be alcohol or drugs. Most of all, keep your art because the true ART of our field is being LOST. (Amen.) Draw, paint, sketch, do whatever it takes. Do it as a part of your work. Do it outside of your work. Never stop.
• Get out of school, humble yourself, do the internships and the assistantships-- work for and learn from everyone and everything you can.

Anyway, it was a really great meeting. We hung around for a while, but it was awesome to hear from somebody who was just naturally inclined to do what he does-- he didn't bust his ass in school to get to where he is, but he is still there. And he is successful. 

Be passionate. Be tenacious.

Branding... Brazenly

Branding is not just about a mark. Right? It is only a piece--it fits into how color is used, how language is used, and how the entire company is viewed. The big idea is the perception of the brand, capturing the vision and essence of the company is the greater goal. In a way, designing becomes so much more about business than I ever first thought--marketing and branding, making the appearance and first impression of a company become a part of the personality of the brand. As designers, we should pull the inherent personality OUT of the company and make it visually communicable. So, we take up the responsibility for success and failure of their business; our own experiments in design create the look and personality of an entire company, the investment of dreams and hopes for unknown numbers of people. It's a big job. It's a bold job. 

It's all in the process

"A good design process yields good design. A bad design process of making design yields design whose quality mirrors its process. It all comes down to the choices designers make."   

--Rick Valicenti

Well, the end of another semester is here. I'm pretty worried about how things are turning out-- according to Mr. Valicenti, my final projects will be pretty dreadful, if the progress I have made (or not made) in the past few weeks is any indication of my actual process. Let's say I'd rather consider the progress just to be... well, not visible progress. Mental or theoretical, perhaps. 

Ah, well. Hard to believe things when life goes so quickly.

Kinetic Typography

I wrote a paper a while back about kinetic typography and its potential to change the way we get information. Typography is already such a powerful thing, evoking feelings, directing attention, delivering information-- and yet, we have grown from the static world of type into a motion-filled, interactive arena of attention-grabbing information. It is incredible how our mind can read words, even when they are presented in a non-linear fashion. 

I connected to this article from Design Observer, but I'm glad I found it. I had linked to most of these videos on YouTube, but they already have them all together in one place-- how convenient! Check it out: Great Scenes from TV and Film Using Typography.

Purpose of Design

An ongoing conversation I have been having lately--

Posted comment:

Don't you think pushing "social change" with design is a little like painting your house with crayons? Nonsensical metaphor aside, we should probably define design first. I'll say that its just a way to execute an idea. In my opinion, all these people need to let go of the "OMG designers save the world" and just save the world (if that's even possible or needed).

First of all, if 500 people were given crayons, the house wouldn't take any time at all to fill with color-- and it would be done in a way that was different for every person, but still succeeded in reaching the goal at hand. In fact, as children, we were so inclined to use crayons to color the walls that it is a sad thing that we have lost that ambition, the thought that we could change the world and have since given up.

No. I don't think design as a means to the end is going to save the world. I've said that before, and I can't contradict myself until I am convinced the truth is otherwise.I also don't think that most of us will find ways in which we are able to change the world with design, unless we seek them out. For some, opportunity will come knocking but for others, it's waiting behind a door yet undiscovered. We can't all change the world, especially not as one person, and we can't change it only with design.

I also don't agree with your definition of design, because it's not about executing ideas as much as it is identifying and determining solutions to problems. Executing ideas doesn't mean that you are serving a purpose or resolving an issue (though it is certainly a valid means of communication, one in which very few are able to find a voice and a message that reverberates outside their respective field and discipline-- yet when it does, it speaks powerfully about the ability and the means in which ideas and thoughts ARE executed). Design takes on a challenge to change the way people think and behave, which can lead to so many different things-- in this case, awareness and a voice that asks people to make decisions about what and who they put their money toward. And in many ways, designers have the ability to help create solutions for problems and improve the quality of life of people around the globe.

I do think that the definition of design is broad. But it is focused in many ways, too. Let me link you to what Wikipedia says, and what the collective anonymous contributing authors have summed up in many ways to describe design. My favorite part?

"In philosophy, the abstract noun "design" refers to a pattern with a purpose. Design is thus contrasted with purposelessness, randomness, or lack of complexity. To study the purpose of designs, beyond individual goals (e.g. marketing, technology, education, entertainment, hobbies), is to question the controversial politics, morals, ethics and needs such as Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
Often a designer (especially in commercial situations) is not in a position to define purpose. Whether a designer is, is not, or should be concerned with purpose or intended use beyond what they are expressly hired to influence, is debatable, depending on the situation. Not understanding or disinterest in the wider role of design in society might also be attributed to the commissioning agent or client, rather than the designer."

Mostly? I think design is more of a verb than a noun, and that it can include a lot of things. I might not have used to think that... I'll admit. But if you see it that way, design has a lot more opportunities.... from print to product to space.


You can't honestly think that the world doesn't need saving, in any way at all. It may not be a single issue thing, but there are so many little (and not so little) things that make up a world that is filled with injustice and tragedy. As designers or not (and we all are because we all think critically and solve problems), we have a responsibility as people to try and do something that makes a difference, that creates social change. And I firmly believe that the idea of an imaginary designer* making a difference, starting in one small town, is nothing but hope for the potential of real people around the world.

-----

* referencing previous discussion about Ernst Bettler, who can be read about more thoroughly in an article at Design Observer.