Data visualization intensive, or What I did on my summer vacation

August 20, 2012

Data visualization is a burgeoning area of graphic design that is being used by many major corporations to convey complex information graphically. A cousin of information graphics, data visualization uses technology interactively to transform and update, crating new levels of understanding.

I attended a two week intensive at the School of Visual Arts MFA Interactive Design program this summer. Hilla Katke led our intrepid group as we were instructed to mine data sets that related to New York City. I chose to analyze and visualize department of labor data on the creative industry. I now consider myself an expert on navigating the US Department of Labor website, which was no easy task; it was one of the worst user interfaces imaginable. (Note to President Obama, call Mayor Bloomberg and get his team to overhaul all of the us.gov websites.)

What did I learn? A few facts and no surprises. First, since 2000, there has been a substantial migration of creative industries to Brooklyn from Manhattan. Second, web design agencies flourished during the recession while other creative businesses declined. Third, if you are a printer or a photographer, you are probably on unemployment. The printing industry began its decline almost 25 years ago, but the photo industry in particular has shrunk by 20% over the last ten years.

Here are the visualizations:

 

Data Viz

June 19, 2012

 

Yesterday I made a big leap into the world of programming and Data Visualization. The course is being held at the School of Visual Arts Graduate Program in Interactive Design. Data Visualization combines art and math to craft interactive “stories” that are based upon information.

My colleagues have varied backgrounds. Some are like me, programming neophytes. Others are deep into it. Tonight’s section is programming in software called “Processing”.

And now for the adventure…

Beauty and truth

June 4, 2012

Beauty is truth, truth beauty. Or is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Philip Toledano has posted a photographic series of portraits on his website entitled, “A New Kind of Beauty.” He asks a series of provocative questions regarding our societal attitudes towards beauty. If beauty has been a currency, now that we have the technological means to mint our own, what choices do we make?

His series portrays individuals who have chosen to remake themselves through plastic surgery. He asks if this act reveals true character or strips away identity.

Yvette, by Philip Toledano

I found the series to be at times provocative and at other times disturbingly gruesome although the subjects are beautifully photographed. I repeatedly asked myself why—why would someone do this to himself or herself? Why would a doctor comply? The series makes me think of National Geographic photos of African tribes that ritually disfigure themselves.

In 2011, there were 13.8 million cosmetic surgery procedures. Women’s magazines extol self-acceptance yet present images of perfectly retouched beauties in both advertising and editorial, creating contradictory messages. Image after image is of perfection; the perfect breast, the perfect cheek, the perfect arm, and of course, perfect hair.

Are we redefining beauty now that we can have the equivalent of real-time Photoshop? Is this the evolution of our culture or simply a reflection of a self-absorbed society?

 

Summer fashion for the masses

May 30, 2012

We’ve been observing trends in my office and when my colleague Michael Aron brought in photos of women in long skirts, I said, “Damn, I know that trend, I wish I took those photos—we laughed because all of the women were holding their skirts!” I am reproducing his images from Memorial Day weekend.

Three summers ago, retailers introduced the “Patio Dress”, a floor length, gossamer garment meant for longing around the pool with friends on languid afternoons or evenings. It is advertised as shown, typically by a 5’10″ model, with the breeze lifting the skirt slightly giving it a romantic quality.

Intermix Campaign

Consider reality: a 5’4 woman, a bit stocky, the skirt a bit long with her flip flops, struggling with the afternoon’s activities; in order to keep up with her companions, she must bunch the skirt and hold it to keep it off the ground. The intent of the designer disconnects with the garment’s actual use. Instead of graceful bourgeois relaxation, these women are struggling to adapt their attire to an active afternoon, and the dress becomes the focus of their movement. It was observed that the husband or boyfriend gallantly intervenes at times to hold the skirt. It’s a nice gesture, but the effect of ethereal glamour is completely lost.

Average women in long skirts

It makes me long for the time period of Downton Abbey, where the rules for dress were clear and clothing was paired with appropriate activities. One wore gowns to dinner and boots to hunt. And while I believe in creativity and eclecticism in modern dress, one needs to consider function at times and I daresay, the figure of the woman to be paired with the outfit. Sometimes it just doesn’t work. Where is Tim Gunn when you need him?

 

 

Ah, the simple life…

May 18, 2012

Yesterday’s New York Times Home Section led with a story about Graham Hill and his 420 square foot apartment design http://nyti.ms/KIou9X. Graham is the founder of TreeHugger, a TED speaker and the founder of a fledgling company, LifeEdited.

His thesis is that we should all own less so that we can store less and experience more. His popular aphorisms are “Transfer ownership to access” and “Editing is the skill of this century: editing space, media consumption, friends.”

Two weeks ago Jane Brody, also of the Times, discussed her effort to declutter her life http://bit.ly/Kl27D3. Clearly there is something in our collective zeitgeist.

Prior to the 1970’s people did not own as much stuff. Virgina Postrel, in her book The Substance of Style, cites that the average person owned at the most ten outfits. Come the 70’s, we experienced reduced manufacturing costs, greater interest in marketing and a prosperous middle class. Consumption became democratized.

By the 1980’s and 90’s our society began to revere wealth as never before. Remember Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous? People magazine was a sensation followed by the supermarket tabloids. The 24 hour news cycle needed more and more content and found that it was profitable to report on the clothing, love lives and frailties of celebrities. Designer knock-offs were everywhere; anyone could buy “the look” and they did; retail sales now account for two-thirds of the American economy.

Clearly there is a sense of fatigue with all of this consumption. Clothing styles have changed little in the past 20 years; we are all buying the same stuff over and over again, and we have no where to put it.

Shouldn’t we lighten our loads? I do agree, but perhaps more with Jane Brody’s approach, which, when you read her article, is more empathic and realistic. Mr. Hill’s apartment cost $287,000 and his renovation cost $365,000. The simple life, as it turns out, is not so simple. It comes at a cost of $652,000.

 

A Star is Born

November 28, 2011

This weekend it seemed that the big news was not about giving thanks; it was consumerism: Black Friday, Small Business Saturday and Cyber Monday made the top headlines. Steven Heller was certainly in the holiday spirit with his lucid and insightful critique of American Apparel’s new ad campaign:

http://bit.ly/vHBauU

In case you haven’t had time to read Heller’s post, American Apparel is jumping on that old marketer’s bandwagon: SEX. The images are trying hard to be lurid…it’s just that sex is oh so twentieth century.

What do consumers really want? Let’s look at retailers across the price scale and we can see a trend: everyone wants to be a STAR. The new Michael Kors campaign features a limo and a club scene replete with trendsetters bathed in his product. Donna Karan’s bridge line, DKNY, has launched a new campaign with women “caught” by the camera. If you can believe it, there is even a teenage prom dress line called, “Paparazzi.” And last but not least, if you can’t afford a dress, you can go to your local drugstore and purchase some Crest white strips in the 3-D version to attract the shooters.

Michael Kors Campaign image

Michael Kors Campaign image

DKNY Campaign image

DKNY Website image

Paparazzi Campaign

These images are carefully contrived with a creepy similarity. The lighting is complex, shot at ‘night’ with multiple strobes and of course, the styling is meticulous with luxury dripping from every hand or wrist. The higher the price of goods, the more the presence of the camera is implicit. In the Michael Kors and DKNY images we never see the photographers. The Crest on-air commercial by contrast has the paparazzi out in full force as does the prom dress manufacturer.

If you are a student of photography, you realize no paparazzi image would look as gorgeous—these images express fame as fantasy; a place where no one is fat, no one is ugly, and no one is ordinary. Fame is the new desire. We live in a post sexual society that is pleasured not by intimacy but voyeurism, oversharing and exposition; there are no risks, no diseases and superiority is gained with little effort.

Simply swipe a credit card.

Design for Good

October 26, 2011

I was first introduced to Nicholas Negroponte in the late 1980’s as a Syracuse University graduate student. We were assigned “The Media Lab” by Stuart Brand (Whole Earth Catalogue) and then took a field trip to MIT and met Mr. Negroponte. After the introductions, we were handed off to the program’s graduate students to experience their research first hand. I can’t remember what exactly we saw twenty years ago, but it was a breathtaking, mind-blowing experience.

Last Tuesday evening, the D-Crit program at the School of Visual Arts hosted Nicholas Negroponte to discuss where the One Laptop Per Child project is today. The D-Crit lecture series is small and intimate with about 50 guests in a classroom followed by a bit of wine and cheese washed down with a few lively bon mots.

Negroponte is nothing if not charismatic. He has been under fire for years facing criticism for his program from critics who pose that the computers are luxury items in areas where so much more is needed. His critics contend two main points: the machines are like valuable currency and expose the children to attacks. The other is that OLPC is a one size fits all solution and imposes western educational values on other cultures. It negates the importance of teachers.

Issues such as shelter, nutrition and clean water are seen as larger priorities by other NGOs, and many view his program as another example of U.S. imperialism. Yet, Negroponte is indefatigable. His passion is obvious; he will tell you in a heartbeat to replace the word “laptop” with “education” in your criticism. He believes that more access to a connected world, means more learning. More learning will diminish poverty.

The sheer magnitude of the mountain Negroponte chose to scale since 2005 is amazing. He has had to get extensive capitalization, deal with the fluctuating price of manufacturing commodities, coordinate industrial designers and developers, and reach terms with manufacturers, factories, satellites, cell towers, and governments. And one must also consider the reality of working in developing countries: there are many nefarious individuals with whom one must negotiate or pay off.

Negroponte states that he wants to do what the market won’t. Early in the process, manufacturers refused to create a low-cost laptop or to drop prices below $1,000; the market adds features as real costs drop to sustain pricing. Many, including Intel, fought him but now support his efforts. As OLPC moves into its next phase, Negroponte plans to manufacture a tablet that can run on solar power, yet this time he hopes to use his research and development to drive market forces to manufacture it rather than do it himself.

One Laptop Per Child has been a project driven by design. Prototypes are in the collections of the Cooper Hewitt Design Museum and the project has been discussed at length at numerous design conferences. It is one of the most publicized examples of “Design for Good.”

Beginning with Victor Papenek’s lucid 1984 treatise Design for the Real World, design focused social projects, or “Design for Good” have come under fire for their often-inappropriate solutions, lack of accountability and metrics. While much of the criticism is valid, the other side of the argument is while the problems of developing nations are daunting and there are few successful programs to model against, do we just give up?

The AIGA has recently announced an initiative, “Design for Good”. While the design industry should continue to apply its creativity to address many of the world’s problems, it has to bring more rigor to the process, specifically, “design thinking”. This means establishing criteria for success and doing the grunt work of collecting meaningful data and having the courage to admit mistakes. Pioneers such as Nicholas Negroponte can inspire, but the lesson is not to just do something, but to actually have an impact.

 

Steve Jobs

October 5, 2011

Today is my Father’s birthday. He passed away twelve years ago. Tonight I began my work thinking about how best to offer insightful critical thinking on a variety of design subjects. And then I heard the news. Steve Jobs, the greatest technological innovator of the twentieth century has died. It made me think about how many times my life has changed through the years. Personally and professionally.

In 2003 I had the opportunity to participate in the AIGA Harvard University Design Leadership Program. One of my professors posed that Apple was over. I challenged him, stating that I felt Apple wold become a leader in consumer electronics. He told me Apple was doomed.

I honestly don’t remember if the iTunes store had started yet when I was at Harvard. But I knew how huge the iPod was–in 2001, I was the most popular boss ever, giving an iPod to each of my employees at Christmas. I sensed momentum even if the metrics didn’t exist. And this year, Apple passed Microsoft as the technological leader—no one would have anticipated that in 2003.

Steve Jobs revolutionized my industry. My generation of designers has never had a moment of complacency since 1984; and that is a beautiful thing. I hated reledding type by hand and Steve, when you are up there in heaven, please know that there is at least one designer is happy to go home every night knowing with confidence, that I do not have an inadvertent piece of a client’s text, glued to my sleeve.

Urbanized

September 21, 2011

When Gary Hustwit created the film Helvetica, he took a small subject and made it large. In his latest film, Urbanized, Hustwit attempts to wrap his arms around a massive subject, urban planning. While thought provoking, Urbanized is probably his most disjointed film.

The issues of urban planning are so large on a global level; he looks at slums in Rio de Janeiro and Mumbai, development in Beijing, growth of the green party in Germany and many other cities. Of particular interest to me, is the transformation of New York City. Hustwit could have taken this city and made a documentary on it alone.

Urbanized is interesting, conversation provoking, but ultimately goes nowhere; the subject is too large and the issues too complex for one film for it to reach a focused conclusion. Hustwit, however is a great advocate for the power of design; he continues to reveal its mysteries and make it accessible to the average person, and for that fact alone, Urbanized is successful.

I am done with 9/11

September 12, 2011

The loss of human life is always sad. When it is someone close to you, it is profound. When that same loss is sudden and unexpected, it is even more so. I understand this because twelve years ago my father died walking down his street, with a massive heart attack on the neighbor’s lawn. My daughter died on Fourth of July without a reason.

I have a problem with 9/11. No loss of life is insignificant, but when it is in the context of a larger event, it becomes amplified and frankly, I resent it. I resent that the loss of my beloved grandparents, my godparents and my father and my daughter are not profound in the national consciousness. Did they die before their time? Were they too young? Who is to say? They are my loss and every day I must go on, just like victims of the 9/11 events; I just don’t have a network for my grief—my loved ones were not attacked by bad guys.

Why is it in our national collective mind that we must, as a country mourn for those lost on one day, when there are millions of lives senselessly lost every day? Yes it is sad that people going about their every day lives lost theirs one day at the same time. But in my mind, my grandmother, my grandfather, my godmother, my father and my daughter were heroes in their own way. And there is no national memorial, no compensation, no day of acknowledgement, and no magazine article.

As a nation, I feel we need to be stronger and stop this insipid tendency to make our personal sadness and grief national. Move on. Live your lives. Be productive. Be a person that your loved one can be proud of. Appreciate every moment and stop living in the past.