As We May Think

         
          Although many part of this article seemed a bit "above my head,” I was intrigued while reading Vannevar Bush's article.  I ended up reading through it a few times because, while I acknowledge V. Bush's determination in future predictions, I came to see that his work is closer to sharing a vision/ his believed vision.  There is definitely a difference between the two; when one is looking at the future through eyes of vision, the future becomes equally about the journey, not just the outcome.  

Today, we seem to focus more on the outcome, especially when it involves technology and design.   While I believe that the outcome is just as important as the process, so often the process is so often forgotten, even by those who are working through it, because so much stress is placed on the outcome.  I really think that’s unfortunate because as V. Bush reminds us: “Whenever logical processes of thought are employed—that is, whenever thought for a time runs along an accepted groove—there is an opportunity for the machine.”  So, outcome can only ever be the result of logical processes and development.

I think this is why we were asked to read this article.   It reminds us to think of the inconceivable, and to be participators in developing this inconceivable until it reaches fruition.  The final result may not match the original idea, but much can be learned by living the process.

Intellectual Property

I think Intellectual property should be relevant, but IP is never respected anymore. The creator of the piece should backup files on a flash drive just so the date and time are recorded. The problem with intellectual property is that people can edit, duplicate, and rearrange an artist’s piece. Photoshop to edit images, and audacity to record anything put on YouTube. The internet made it easier for users to copy and paste; so finding every instance where an artist’s creation was stolen, or used, is extremely difficult. I feel that what is stolen, and who it’s stolen from, are the main factors.

Madonna, Dr.Dre, and Metallica had their music stolen off of Napster; and because they have the power and money they helped bring down the Napster network. Monica Guadio wouldn’t be able to stop a company like Napster. Griggs was right about the internet being a public domain, but every artist has a right to claim their work. The reason I think it’s still relevant is because of Guadio’s supporters. The supporters made the matter relevant; they changed the outcome. Before any action can be taken, intellectual property has to be proven. Obviously Griggs response proved to the supporters that Guadio was the owner. It was originally her intellectual property, and she should have been respected. On a difficult topic like this, the original owner needs to document and prove their work. If not, the fight is useless.

Plagiarism

Being brought up in an age where the internet was always, or at least for as long as I can remember, readily available got me into an early habit of getting inspiration from any places I could, regardless of whether or not it was "legal" for me to use it. However, I never used any of the material I obtained in a way that profited me, so it was never like the Shepard Fairey incident. I feel as though the copyright laws are fair enough to still help me get any inspiration or information i might need without hindering my artistic method.

I have seen, and even had my close friends experience, cases of their own art being, pretty much, ripped off and used for monetary gain by others. Not only are those people stealing work from the original creator of that work, but they are possibly gaining more recognition, future jobs/income, etc. from those they are stealing from. It's not just bad to steal work from someone and pass it off as your own, it is morally wrong, I feel.

Bring me the Hammer of IP!

Intelectual Property in the new era of communication is starting lots of wildfires. Companies that have had a slower transition into the new ways are all running into issues. Another issue is people do not know to what degree to file or just to file every believed new misuse.

http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2010/01/08/32643/

Games Workshop is a company I have been involved with for 10 years in my hobby time. They have recently brought down a lot of IP cease and desist orders and this shocked the Wargaming community. Many rogue companies over the years have spawned up selling all Wargaming products at a slightly discounted price. These sites used the Games Workshop product pictures in their websites, and Games Workshop came down on every last one of them. Now all product pictures the sites must make or take themselves.

http://www.chillingeffects.org/copyright/notice.cgi?NoticeID=30508

Another case was the use of the aquila, which Games Workshop claims under their IP. The aquila in history is a Roman design that was used a lot through out the army's standards. Many sites used this symbol wether it is hobby related or not. Games Workshop forced one of the most popular Wargaming forums to change their entire site due to there use of the aquila. This again enraged the community and start a big Games Workshop revolt. Nothing came further, but how can a company claim a historical symbol?

This is where I first ran into IP and I was astonished. It seems soon nothing if going to be free to use if any company can come along and buy them up. Games Workshop has a niche in the futuristic heroic scale model market that is now being penetrated by another company by the name on Mantic Games. They released first stills of their new models and I can foresee some Games Workshop tension.

The relevance of IP in today's digital art

I believe that intellectual property is still relevant in the digital age. It may not just be implemented and followed like it should be. In today's digital age a lot of art and designs are copied for recreational use and people that are copying those forms of art or ideas think nothing of it. But when it is used for public work or for some form of profit the steps of getting permission from the owner may be followed more than recreational use. I believe that the digital age today is about recreating designs rather than creating it from scratch, and I believe its from a mixture of pure laziness along with easy accessibility of other peoples' work for a form of inspiration and/or recreation.

Once years go by I believe that copyrighting and intellectually property may be overlooked by designers and re-creators. Resulting in a raise in civil lawsuits because of the ignorance on the topic. Even though some critics believe that IP is an exaggeration in copyrighting forms of art because of the "culture movement", I believe that credit should always be given to any original designer that may be used for inspiration for any public form of art.

Copyright and Intellectual Property

This topic was really interesting. I didn’t know that there are so many laws protecting the content on Intellectual property. I did know about the copyright laws of photography, illustrations, artwork, trademark, movies but there are other laws of Intellectual Property which protect content far beyond that. They protect almost all the intangible assets of creative form. Well in my opinion there should be such laws.  

Stealing money, property or valuable items is a major crime and anyone who would commit that would certainly have all the chances of being behind bars. Thankfully, stealing intellectual property does not have so strict laws but they do protect one’s creative assets.

On the other hand I completely agree to the fact as my classmate Monica Sicilia has mentioned, that one needs some ideas to start our own work. As a novice in the field of web-designing I study some codes of HTML, CSS and scripting from various websites. Also when I start with a design or any form of creative work I go through references.Even before writing this blog I read many articles. But the final form of my work is my own intellectual property. It is creative in its own form and different from others. In all case I would certainly like to protect its design and content from plagiarism. And also to be noted that I have not copied other’s work but just made a fair use of it as a reference.

Moreover the law of copyright does not say ‘Never to reproduce a form of intellectual property’. It only demands the permission or the proper compensation given to original artist, which in my opinion should be considered fair. This topic reminds me of a hit movie, ‘ 3 idiots ‘ (2010) in Bollywood (Indian ) theatres which made a lot of money. The movie was mainly based upon a novel ‘Five Point Someone’- a novel by an upcoming writer ‘Chetan  Bhagat’.  There was a major controversy going on for quite a long period of time for not giving appropriate credit to the writer. Also it is ethically injustice to forget the contribution of the base artist of the successful work.  There are many re-make of movies, music, digital albums, art forms , creative content which in its form is good but proper credits and acknowledgement should be given to the creator of the work.

It is an irony but one thing that I noticed while reading the articles was that the right and issues of Intellectual property were brought to light, as for example in case of Shepard Fairey’s  - HOPE poster , OBEY poster or of Monica Claudio content writing only when the new form of work reached heights of success. There is a famous quote ‘  Success has many fathers but failure is often an orphan’. Whatever the case may be, due importance should be given to the original creator.

In today’s world where we give importance to creativity, innovation, art, originality, design, concept, ideas, knowledge, wisdom  – one should certainly respect and abide by the laws of intellectual property.

Clearly I've thought about this before...

Many Americans based their ethical standards off of their religious beliefs, and therefore the Ten Commandments. Perhaps one of the biggest commandments is “thou shall not steal.” Children especially are taught that stealing is right up there with murder; however, in the design community, adults are breaking this commandment daily. Designers are not physically robbing each other; instead, they are pilfering intellectual property for their own convenience or gain. While what they are doing may not seem like a common perception of stealing, numerous guides, laws, and charters have been developed arguing for and against this point. Plagiarism, appropriation, intellectual property, and copyright infringement are the main topics involved in this issue of theft, although they are very ambiguous, with definitions often overlapping. As a result, web and graphic designers are struggling to make the hefty decision as to whether what they are doing is legal or illegal, ethical or unethical.

As digital design is electronically based, it is even easier to copy the hyperlinks or steal code. Some web designers work hard on developing tedious code, while someone could come and easily steal it if they know how. “Technological advances allow a relatively unskilled web designer to combine code from one website and images from others and end up with something that does not scream “borrowed elements recombined” like a collage of magazine clippings. Digital collage techniques allow the combination of elements in a seamless fashion also removes the natural disclaimer of cut edges.”  (gunnar swanson plagiarism article) Without the disclaimer, one must ask, is it plagiarism or infringement if no one but the designer knows?

With all that being said, I am in favor of utilizing every and any resource I can get my hands on, whether it be code, images, software, or music. I enjoy appropriation art because it tends to lend something more to the original images, whether it be a humorous satire, or a profound statement. I think Shep Fairey is a borderline genious for all that he is able to get away with-some of the prints he designs for his Obey clothing line are direct ripoffs of other artists, with no artistic treatment applied. Overall, I just think that it is vital for us as designers to understand copyright laws, but in the sense that we know the workaround and severity. As Albert Einstein once said, "creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."

Music in the Digital age

Record companies came late to the whole new world of digital music. They ignored the cassette revolution of the 1980's and early 90's. Its only when they saw the potential for a great lost to their bank accounts that they choose to actually try to control the music sharing industry. By ignoring what was going on in the 80' and 90's they left the door wide open and in some ways even helped foster the whole music sharing subculture. They never put noticeable restrictions on cassettes or other recording medium. If there ever was a warning on the packaging, it was so small that microscopes would be needed. Everyone that had a tape deck and a record player was making mixed tapes for their friends. So why would it stop when the digital age appeared?

There was an already established acceptance of "file" sharing that predated the digital age. The only thing that the digital age fostered was that the music could be traded over long distances and to many more people that it was ever thought possible. This rapid expansion scared the record companies and their bottom line. If they truly wanted to control their rights then shouldn't they have stopped the sale of used records and then CD's? As far as I am aware they never have.

Now I should write about the negatives of file sharing, but I have a hard time with this as I know too much about what the record companies do and how they control the artist that actually create the music they want to control. If I felt that the record companies where acting on the true behalf of the artist, then yes I would find the whole file sharing to be a worth while fight on their part. I would have no problem with their request and their legal actions. Unfortunately all I can really see is large corporations seeing the loss of their revenue and that they failed to predict what might happen in the digital age.

So who actually owns the rights to the music? So many unsigned artists are posting their music for free downloads and requesting fans to share it around that in the minds of many people the rights get blurred. Once that happens the consumer thinks less and less of who actually owns the rights to the music that file sharing becomes and accepted habit. Does this translate into other areas of the digital world? Yes it has, so many people seem to feel that "grabbing" things from the internet is an acceptable way to do things any more. At this point in time there would have to be a major movement to change this misconception and until this happens then I don't see things changing any time soon.

Life is about choices!

    

     The whole matter of Intellectual Property is really a two-edged sword—I think there will always be both favorable and unfavorable consequences depending upon which side of the issue you find yourself, or depending upon whether or not you believe there are ethical implications when it comes to IP.  Personally, I like to be able to grab images or materials and “tweek” them a bit to make them “my own” because often times I just need the idea to get me started, and most often the final result isn’t anything close to the material that gave me the impetus that got me started.   I’m also not in a position where the materials I create will be used or sold in a public forum, as was the case with Shepard Fairey (who in my opinion didn’t do anything wrong because copyright laws do not support ideas and artistic styles).  If that were the case I think I would definitely not feel the same way about the use of materials I find online.

     With that being said, I also do believe and support the notion that the use of Intellectual Property encompasses a certain ethical standard by which all peoples should be held.  It is wrong to “steal” materials—plain and simple.  We have laws in place to provide incentives to authors, artists, musicians, producers, etc. to continue to create materials for us to enjoy.  Hopefully these laws will also afford them the opportunity to acquire JUST wages for their creations.  I think it’s wrong when I hear of people copying software, online subscriptions, music, etc., and/ or downloading things for FREE when they know they’re not open source.  Then, they share these files with others—so now two people are participating in an unethical IP practice.  The cycle never seems to end with these types of practices and I don’t think they ever will—Life is about choices!—even in the IP arena.

This week's assignment is all about Intellectual Property and ownership.

The official assignments are below. Please be sure to do the readings. In class I'd like to debate the controversies around Shepard Fairey's lawsuits and the former Napster lawsuit, so please come prepared to discuss.

Read:

• http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#mywork
• http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#howmuch
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property
• http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2010/11/05/131091599/the-day-the-internet-threw-a-righteous-hissyfit-about-copyright-and-pie&sc=tw&cc=share
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepard_Fairey#Legal_issues_with_appropriation_and_fair_use
• http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2006/10/copyright_conun.html

For ANYthing you write, please comment on whether/how you think Intellectual Property is different in the digital age.

Some possible things to muse about:

• Go to uspto.gov and do a search in the database for a trademark or company that owns a trademark. Blog about what you find.
• Blog your thoughts about how the electronic world is affected by intellectual property rights.
• Blog two paragraphs defending online music sharing (such as the original napster). Then blog two paragraphs condemning it.
• Read about the lawsuits around Shepard Fairey’s HOPE poster and comment on the case.

Creativity vs Innovation

Every day, every second someone comes up with a new idea. Someone is creating something that was just once no more then a thought in their head. Every day, every second someone comes up with a new way of using something. Someone is innovating something that was just once no more then a thought in someone else's head that didn't go the the limit.

Creativity is where all ideas start and brew from until they become reality.  When an idea reaches its limits of technology at that times the idea sits as is. Eventually when other created ideas improve the technology around the idea it can be looked back onto. The cellphone when created was simply the idea of a phone, but with the added technology of mobile use. To me creativity and innovation are like step brothers, they don't like each other, but need each other. You can't innovate what doesn't exist and you can reach your high of potential with out constant innovation. 

Is being creative also innovative?

I don't think there is that big of a difference between creativity and innovation, I believe that creativity is a part of innovation but is also its own process.  Once an new idea comes about the next step is the creative process, but for it to be innovative this creative process has to be fully subjective from any other designs that can influence it. Creative people sometimes use other peoples' works or forms of art to inspire their creativity. This is where being creative generates its own process and parts from being innovative. 

Artists sometimes may take other works of art and recreate it into their own, which may come out very lovely, but it is not innovative. Being innovative when it comes to art and designs means that the overall idea or concept is something you generated on your own and you may also develop on your own. Innovation is essentially creating you own path, in this case its creating your own work, from scratch. Creativity comes after innovation but it also happens during innovation when developing your idea, but to be innovative this idea has to be new and fresh, not inspired by another design.

creativity vs innovation

To me, creativity and innovation are two separate words with two different meanings, although they both can be intertwined to help each other out. I feel that creativity is making the most out of a given situation. You can be creative in a lot of different ways, it doesn't just have to be artistic endeavors. I'm a broke college student, and I have to be creative every night when it comes to how I am going to eat dinner. Pasta is cheap and I stock up whenever I go to the grocery store, so I wind up eating it a lot. The issue is it gets boring the same spaghetti with tomato sauce, so I have to get creative. I look in my fridge and cabinets and look to see what I can do, I see I have basil, and garlic, and some cashews, so there it is my creative thought comes into my head, Ill just make some pesto sauce that way I wont be so bored with what I normally put on my pasta. Although its not very creative, it is at least a little bit, but in no ways was it innovative, everyone can make pesto.

In my mind, innovation isnt more important than creativity, its just on a different plane of thinking. When I think of innovation, I think of something that has never been done before, something that steps up the level of play and makes others think "Wow, I wish I thought of that". However, I do believe that no one can be innovative without being creative. This is where the two go hand in hand and make each other work. For example, maybe Alexander Graham Bell was just really lonely when he came up with the idea to make the telephone. Although probably not true, it illustrates the point that he had to be creative to figure out an easy way to talk to people across long distances without moving from your house, and in his creativity, he created a hugley innovative idea, to build a telephone.

creativity vs. innovation

I usually think of these two words as two distinct entities, however, when asked to compare them, I suddenly found myself seeing just how close in relation the words are. For me, I think the main difference between creativity and innovation is that innovation is more concrete whereas creativity can be more abstract. Creativity is all about imagination and thinking in a different way. To be creative, these thoughts do not have to come to fruition exactly; however, to be innovative, one must accomplish something or yield results. I think innovation is the application of creativity to improve upon a preexisting thought/method or a completely new thought; usually increasing usability and function. Creative thinking and innovative thinking could be described very similarly, but I think, again, the difference lies in the actions associated with each word. Creative thinking comes up with different, interesting ideas, while innovative thinking comes up with a method to change the game. I think as digital designers, we must have creativity in order to execute innovative tasks in user experience, for example.  Creativity is a great skill, but to be successful digital designers, we must challenge ourselves to act and become innovative.

Creativity vs. Innovation

Is there a difference between Creativity and Innovation? Yes !! Creativity is a within process, a continuous flow of thoughts and ideas whereas innovation is the outcome of it in physical world. Basically creativity is the ability to transcend traditional ideas and forms into new meaningful ideas and forms whereas innovation is something new or different introduced. It is more of than simply great ideas. It is practical. 

Electricity is considered as one of the best innovations till date. It required immense efforts of Edison to bring electricity into working condition. Innovation demanded more of him than simply the creative idea that something can light up a bulb. It is for this reason that creativity is free, whereas innovation consumes time, space, money and labor.

 Every person on this earth is creative. Each one has numerous creative ideas in a day, but not all are innovative to execute it. I had read that Apple’s Steve Jobs said that it was the idea for the IPad tablet device that birthed the idea for the IPhone. The idea for IPad came in his mind when he saw the touch screen display prototype by the Cupertino-based tech company, but when the prototype of Ipad was presented by his brilliant UI worker,  Steve thought “my God, we can build a phone with this!” No doubt Steve is considered one of the most innovative person. Moreover, each innovation leads to many other innovations through creative process For eg : The innovation of GPS is unique but it has its roots in the innovation of wifi, google maps  and touchscreen display. Besides there are many smartphones innovated every day. But each one is just better from latter with the addition of only some new features. Thus one can say, “ Innovation violates tradition – attacks it in public and steals from it in private”.

 To sum up,” All forms begin with creativity and end up in innovation. “

Creativity vs Innovation

Its not easy defining the difference between both skills. But, I think to be creative is to think of something new, unique, or different. I think to be innovative is to think of improvements, or upgrades, to something that already exists. The first 2 innovative companies that come to mind are Dyson and Toshiba. Dyson took the vacuum, and made simplistic improvements, that people appreciate. They remodeled the dirt chamber, made the control over the vacuum more precise with the ball, and made their vacuum lighter. Toshiba is marketing on the impact smart hard drives, and spill resistant keyboards. Dyson, didn't invent the vacuum and Toshiba didn't invent the laptop, but these companies have a leading edge on other brands because of their improvements.
I think creativity leans more toward art and design; and innovation leans more toward science and psychology. When it comes to app designing in the digital design field, creativity is hard to find. In the app market there are already 10 apps for the same thing. An innovative designer makes the user appreciate a creative app even more. That designer takes an app that’s already made, and improves how it operates .

Need or emotion

After a few hours of driving in which I was able to float the differences of creativity against innovation; I was focused on what I feel is the basic and fundamental difference between the two . Creativity is something that is born out of your soul. It may not have logic or make complete sense but it speaks from somewhere in the creators being and becomes a part of them. Innovation born from a need. It may not always look pretty or be a wonderful thing to look at. It fills a need to fix or repair something that is found to be lacking. Yes I know it sounds kinda like a Websters definition. I don't believe in clouding the distinctions too much. The more you add to it the more the core of the terms gets lost.

How does creativity and innovation apply to the present digital conversation? At present I feel that the innovation of the digital medium is taking president over the creativity. I think that is in part due to specific needs having to be addressed in the back end of things. Does it mean that innovation doesn't influence the creativity? Not at all, I think at some point in the digital medium they begin to feed off each other and then begin to push the boundaries of the medium. With new innovations the possibilities of the creative process can be expanded. With new ideas and vision comes new directions of innovation.

Creativity vs Innovation

To be innovative, one has to be creative. I believe that everybody is creative. Let me take myself as an example. Before I started my Design program in this school, I never participated in anything that involved arts. Or atleast I wasn't encouraged to. I thought that I was bad in drawing or sketching because I never tried to! I never failed to scribble drawings when I was on phone; my friends and I would take the circuit elements and make jewellery out of it; we use to assign a name to each of the circuit elements, create a story and conduct a mini puppet show; we use to create our own games when bored. a few of the games that we created are, one of us would draw the lyrics in a song and the rest have to find out; one team will translate our native language song exactly in English (word by word) , it will for a very funny sentence and the other team has to find out what song it is. All this means, we were still creative but needed some kind of guidance to use it the right way. After I started my program, it is inexplicable how hard it was for me to even derive ideas for my project and on the top to execute them! Now, after one year of hard work, I am confident enough to say that I am capable of creating good designs. I just had to make the creative part of my brain active.

Innovation is the next step. Everybody are creative in a way. But we need extra something to consider ourselves as an innovator. The picture to the right is the sky park at Singapore! and that what I call innovation!

Shark Tank

     My first reaction to this assignment begins when reading the “vs.” between the words creativity and innovation.  There is definitely a distinction to be made between them—I see creativity as being the enhancement of a concept or something that already exists, and innovation as being a completely new concept that is developed and shared meant to advance us in a particular direction.   Therefore, I don’t like the use of “vs.” because I believe both are invaluable contributions to the world of Digital Design.

     There certainly is a lot of material already out there!  Some is excellent and some not so good, but even though there already is a plethora of great digital design “stuff,” it remains so important for designers to continue to be creative in their interpretation and display of content if they are to make an impact.  It’s not good enough to just make things look nice, as I think is so often a misconception of being creative, so many other elements come into play: functionality, usability, practicality, etc. Keeping this in mind may lead to an innovative response from some designers.   We live in such a power-hungry, consumer-driven world therefore, I think innovation may be viewed as a higher or greater skill to acquire (thinking here of “Shark Tank”--try to "one-up" the other guy), but generally speaking there is a place for those who just want to be like everyone else—we also love our “fads” and the ability to fit-in!

This Week's Assignment

Remember, blog assignments are due Monday by 5PM.


Before you do anything, blog about creativity vs. innovation and how they contribute to digital design. Then do the following:

Read Marcel Duchamp's "The Creative Act":
You can find it all over the internet... Marcel Duchamp wrote an essay called "The Creative Act" There is a copy on this page:  http://www.iaaa.nl/cursusAA&AI/duchamp.html

Watch:
Charles Leadbeater on Innovation:  http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/charles_leadbeater_on_innovation.html

Then reconsider your blog entry, maybe comment on your own or someone else's with new insight...

The Pen is Mightier Than the Mouse?

All professors preach to students these days to pick a pencil and draw first. This seems elementary to us these days as we have these powerful tools at our hands. The thing is when you take away the drawing and old fashion wrist work you start off at a disadvantage. I have personally never skipped that step, even though I know I can't draw at all well. In my Sociology class last semester we talk about how analog and digital people are all around the world. It was a lecture recorded and plays to a video of a guy drawing along with what the speaker was saying on a white board. Though the talk was about how the world was becoming more digital and losing some analog ways, it was shown completely analog. Even now in explaining myself I have a small notebook and a pencil with little notes to myself for this post.  

The odd thing is technology is at the point of phasing out itself. Who uses there cellphone to call people? Why call when I could text?  Texting in itself can be considered more analog then talking on the phone. The phone is the tool to write down the message and send it. As humans we must start to see where we are going to be heading with communication. Our language is seemingly fusing with technology, and so are our lives.

Origins

Even from the early years of my childhood I was involved with both the analog and digital worlds, sketching random images on scrap paper and scribbling with MS Paint. Still today, with the great advances in technology, I find myself using both means almost equally to complete my goals, and I don't think that this is likely to change anytime soon. I start every single one of my projects, for school and otherwise, with an analog method, be it creating a website or writing a song. In my opinion analog planning and development will never be fully removed from the creative process.

I find that working by hand produces more organic, flowing ideas and in the long run allows you to work without the limitations of not knowing how to complete something with electronic means. Thinking in terms of what I want to create (whether or not I actually know how to create it) helps me make the best final product that I can. When I start working on a computer I feel that my start is more hesitant because it seems as if i'm skipping planning just because i'm so used to a process that I have. Even companies like Wacom are acknowledging this with new inventions like the "Inkling" tablet, which uses a special sensor and pressure sensitive pen to track real time sketching on any type of paper and imports it directly onto your computer in vector form. Editing my process over time is something I have come to know with newer technologies and innovations, but i do not feel like that process will ever be 100% digital, or 0% analog.

Digital-Analog together make a powerful team.

“ It’s a small world after all

It's a world of laughter, a world or tears
It’s a world of hopes, it’s a world of fear….

……………It’s a small world after all ”

It’s a small world after all, the famous song by Disney is forming it’s true sense with the rapid development of digital technology. Machines and technology have brought humans closer, made life easier, our output, our progress is far much more than before but at the cost of what ?

If we have achieved so much, than we have also lost some things.  Today, when I log in to Facebook I get all the updates about what my friends and relatives are up to. But at the same time I don’t feel the same love from them. For example: On my last birthday I got so many birthday wishes on Facebook. Some years ago when there was no Facebook…..perhaps the joy I felt was more.  My friends, relatives would call me on phone or personally take out time to come and meet me on my birthday. The compassion, the feelings I felt then was much more joyful.

While I was reading the article, I was lost in the flashback of my life some 10-15 years ago. Life was simple then not with the aid of technology. Today I cannot even think a day without technology.  Further going back in time-machine, I remember my grandmother telling about her life…..when she was of my age. Every morning she had to walk and go to the water well to fetch drinking water and water for other purposes. Every afternoon she would go to the river side to wash clothes and the utensils. There was nothing like refrigerator so food was cooked every morning and evening. In the evening time she would sit with her friends in open air (balcony) and they would talk about their day and at the same time cut vegetables for dinner time food. Her day went as a daily routine and lot of physical activities. She never went to gym…..but even today at the age of 90 she is physically fit. My grandfather did hard mathematical calculations on the tip of his fingers. Before I could open my calculator he would tell answer which was always correct.  He had most people’s phone number in his memory.  And for me today….I cannot even remember my best friend’s cell number.  

 Human beings are evolutionary creatures. We are meant to grow, adapt to changing environments. We have emotions, feelings, intellect, natural instincts, motivational drives……and that is what makes us superior to machines.  We laugh, cry, feel sorrow, enthusiasm and at the same time we can make errorrs which machines cannot. Not given the food for some time we can still work, but if a machine, for example a phone is not recharged it is sure to stop working. We have a purpose for life, some living force which keeps us moving. On the other hand digital technology always works with logic. Many a times we depend on our inner instincts. It is for this reason that many impossible things, inventions and discoveries have been brought into existence.

But at the same time what a machine can do is far beyond the reach of human beings. There cannot be a question which one is better. Digital and analog go together to make a powerful team.

There are so many things said in the article and each of it so true. It has covered almost all the topics….from the basic human nature to the comparison between the humans and machines .I even liked the point “Each generation grows upon the heritage left behind by previous generations”. But for the new generation though life becomes easy the expectation and amount of study materials increases. There is no doubt that today everyone complains about shortage of time.

 Don Norman is indeed a man with keen knowledge of human psychology, philosophy as well as digital technology.

Analog and Digital

As the reading (Being Analog) has stated, humans are biological animals and are inherently analog beings..
Personally, I just don't know how much I agree with that, at least nowadays.

I think it really has a lot to do with the time period you were born in. I was born in 1990 when the computer and technological craze was at its forefront. Looking back, I always remember growing up having a personal computer, albeit much slower, I still had one and used it all the time. When I was little I used to go over my friends houses to play super nintendo, or link up our gameboys to battle each other. It was a different time with different ways of communicating and entertaining ourselves, one that somebody who was born just 10 years before I wouldn't have experienced.

If I had gotten assigned a huge 12 page essay, I know how I would plan it out right away. Do as much research as I can on the computer, maybe dabble a little bit in a couple books (which I would of researched on google first to see which served my purpose the best anyway) then I would make an outline on microsoft word and go from there. Someone in their 40's or older would probably have a completely different plan and would maybe even look down on my own. I am not speaking for everybody, but the question of whether "we" are analog or digital beings seems too complex. There are people who cant turn on the computer, and who would love spending coutless hours in the library with paper and pen busting out a huge essay, and there are also people who are so tech-savy they dont even know what a book is, and every possible combination inbetween.

Shannon-Weaver and Kanye West

I feel that the Shannon-Weaver model is essentially just as relevant today as it was when developed. While the intentions may not seem the same, most steps are very applicable to modern digital communications, even if those steps are interpreted in a different way. I think an interesting way of exemplifying this would be to look at digital communication through the perspective of a public figure, say Kanye West. Kanye is known for always having messages he wishes to spread to his audience, making him the source. For this example, lets simply say he would like to promote his new album. The encoding process may be reducing his message to 140 characters, and deciding on text that will attract the most attention. As mentioned, his message would be to promote his album, however the message itself may not actually have much substance to it. Kanye must then decide which social media he should utilize to send out this message, although nowadays there does not have to be one singular channel, as suggested by the model. The noise this message would potentially face would be media misconceptions or simply the broken English/not yet common vocabulary that not many understand. I would argue that if it happens at all, the decoding process would happen once the receiver (his followers on Twitter) takes in the message, rather than before. The decoding process would clarify the noise. Feedback, of course, would be traced most immediately in terms of retweets and later in terms of album sales.The more feedback Kanye gets, the stronger his presence as a source gets, and the more ready and apt he is to continue this model again.

Ways of Communication Present and Past

Communication in today's would not only be face to face and phone conversation, it would also be considered as social networking and medias such as texting, face-booking and tweeting. That is where most of us communicate with each other and gather information from each other. Now that compared with how society gathered and communicated information with each other is a pretty big difference on many levels. Back in 1948 when the Shannon-Weaver model was first established, communication then was just considered face to face, mail, phone conversation and binary codes through limited computers. Even though there were such limited was of communication compared to today I believe the process of the model essentially applies how information is communicated today through those mediums.

For example, a message is conveyed through a social network such as a facebook message. I am the sender, the encoder is my laptop, the channel is the internet, the noise can be internet connection or even the way internet understands my text. The reception is twitter itself, and finally the receiver is the person who is reading my message and the laptop they are reading it off of. This example compared to an example I found about a telephone conversation uses the same format, the only difference is that today through this new form of communication, there are more factors to consider when breaking down the model.

So communication today can be passed thorough many forms than it was back in the late 40s, but it may be that Shannon had considered that when making this model. Even through its criticism of being so simple, simplicity can sometime be key in a any type of design. This model shows that it can be applied to every way of communication to date the only factor is the different ways that can be used for each element.  

Analoger

If I am asked, I will say that I am an analog person. When I work, I write and scribble on sheets of paper, spread them around me, select my favorite ones, put them together and then transfer the work to my PC. This has been the case since my school days. The reason why I do this is, I can keep track of what I am doing, makes me feel satisfied, saves me some headache and eye pain and most importantly I am not laying barriers for my work with softwares ie., when working with softwares, I keep thinking about what is possible and what is not possible with the software knowledge I have and this puts me under a line that makes me do what the software allows me to do and not what I really like to do.

Once, I was going through a typography book and came across an interview of a famous designer from Canada whose name I don't remember! When he was asked about the way he hires people, he gave an instance as example. It went something like this: "I short listed four best people out of everybody who applied for the job and gave them a topic to design. They had to create the concept, design it and bring it back to me in the next seven days. After seven days they all came with their work and I ended up hiring none! Their works clearly showed that they had focussed on showing the software skills they had which resulted in a lifeless design. Sometimes I felt like the design hardly focussed on the topic given. All I wanted was a simple meaningful design that could've been a paper drawing that can later be illustrated.". Apparently he believed in working with paper first. The same is the case of most of the designers, coders, etc.

The digital world has its importance too. Its just that being analog makes the task easier.

Pen in hand . . .

Moments ago I was sitting here making little notes about what I wanted to write about when I realized the irony of what I was doing. I was using an analog tool to start things off to only end up finalizing my thoughts with a digital medium. I grew up analog and have gotten to see the digital revolution from its very beginnings. I have noticed at least three very striking things about what has happened.

Because of some of my other activities that I enjoy; cycling, hiking, camping; I have noticed a large increase in people looking for ways to connect with their surroundings. Over the past 10 - 15 years the growth in the "adventure" market has been steady. I noticed from my various readings that this growth seemed to correlate with the rapid progression of technology. Mind you its not a direct relationship but it does seem to be noticeable. For as much as we are connected I think many people feel unconnected to the world around them.

The digital world seems to want to incorporate the analog more and more. Evidence of this is the introduction of the Wacom Inkling and the Livescribe pens. What looks like a normal analog pen is actually a digital recorder that can store your writings and drawings. The rational behind these inventions is that we as humans need a tactile tool to help inspire us, to make us feel connected to what we do. Yes I know there is a large amount of scientific study to back up that pens are more ergonomically better for us, but I think it goes to a much more basic instinct then numbers can sum up.

Lastly I am slowly seeing the isolation of the individual. Look at how we communicate more and more. We won't go to talk to some one face to face, we instead send a text or an email. We reply on our electronic extensions to be part of ourselves. Think of how often you might have had a slight panic attack when you can't find your phone. We are so dependent on these devises to stay connected, but are we truly connected? Does "talking" electronically equate to being in front of the person? Does it even carry the same emotional value of being with the person?

I am so intrigued to see what will happen in the near future. What will we reject, what will we accept. Time and the masses can only tell us.

Analog or Digital

The blog had great examples, but I think humans are both analog and digital. There are the simple people who want simple programs, and complex people who want multitasking programs. I think that no matter how well we design programs, apps, software, and hardware it’ll never be exactly what we want, making some lean toward analog and others toward digital. Some humans want more features, and some want less. As designers we need to keep this in mind.

A big factor is that technology isn’t able to evolve at specific times (like how new car models showcase in August). Plasma TVs were in style a few years back, now its LED HD TVs… its LED HD 3D TVs. There are too many loose variables for us to control, and this could make being digital difficult. Mac Vs. PCs, Nvidia Vs. ATI, Intel Vs. AMD, Kingston Vs. Crucial. My ancient nokia cell phone never shut down from failure, it was impossible to overload. But, my new HTC, with all the best new features, will shut down if it overloads running GPS. We have browsers battle on what a designer can and can’t use. These technology wars will never stop, and to make it worse, there are already too many hands in the pot. As humans we need to find our niche and educate ourselves on the technology most relevant to our specific needs.

There are many levels when it comes to understanding technology. We have people who still don’t know how to turn on a PC, and we have people designing/testing hard drives that record at light speed. When designing websites, programs, or apps we have to think of both sides of that spectrum. There’s so much chaos in the field of technology, but in some crazy way humans continue to reach new heights. Each individual has their own choice between analog and digital, and each designer can try to bridge the gaps between the two. I don’t think age affects the choice between analog and digital; it’s more reliant on the individual. I know my uncle still uses index cards to keep count of rent collection, and to switch to an excel spreadsheet wouldn’t fit his needs.

The world will always have its balance of analog and digital. I think that technology is evolving just like our tools and languages did over centuries of exposure; and in time we may have a better relationship with technology.