The Arts of Survival : Clean drinking water

In our community, we often take clean drinking water for granted. As we turn on the tap, clean water flows out continuously and we can have much as we want. Human beings theoretically cannot survive more then 3 days without water. It is a living essential and one of the most basic needs. Living in a developed country, we have absolutely no problem with fulfilling these basic needs. However, some desert regions in the world such as Rajasthan, access to safe drinking water is difficult.
Rajasthan is a developing state in India. As there is very limited Government funding and rainwater provides inadequate amounts of water so subsequently, they struggle to survive without this human necessity.



The Acumenfund organization used a system called Water Pyramid patented by Aqua-Aero Water System (AAWS) to solve the shortage of safe water in Rajasthan. The Water Pyramid was designed to evaporate polluted water and through condensation, collecting distilled water. The Acumenfund organization claimed, “Each Water Pyramid produces enough to meet the needs of 500 individuals on a daily basis.” As the initial cost of this technology is very low, this means many developing countries will benefit from this design.
The AAWS is a private company which designs sustainable solutions for water problems around the world. Design exists to ease living in general. Why didn’t more designers commit to sustaining this basic human need and let every human being in the world live up to the basic standard of living. As designers, what would be more meaningful than to save lives by using your design?

http://www.acumenfund.org/investment/aqua-aero-water-systems.html
http://www.survivalwater.info/
http://www.aaws.nl/home.htm

about Spiekermann

Eric Spiekermann is one of the most well-known typographers of our time. He designed typefaces such as Meta, Officina FF Info, created corporate identities for the german government, VW and Audi and founded Meta Design, Fontshop and United Designers, now SpiekermannPartners.

What kind of role do ethics & sustainibility play in this very specific field of design? How does Spiekermann define his philosophy towards his work?
I put together some interviews and his profil on SpiekerBlog, which is a always worth a visit.

When it comes to the design of typefaces, Spiekermann sees himself as more of a problem solver than an artist as "a designer visualizes a client's issues, problems, brief. An artist his own. Designers and artists use artistic means to show their concepts and designers also use intuition. Thus the confusion. But if i wanted to work like an artist, i would have become an artist and not a designer. I also use science more than an artist would."
"If a design project, however, is to be considered successful – and that would be the true measure of quality – it will not only solve the problem at hand, but also add an aesthetic dimension beyond the pragmatic issues."


What makes a good typeface?

> What makes a good typeface is decided by the users, not the designer.
> Most good typefaces have been designed for one purpose, they do not come from a designer’s whim.
Bodoni designed all his faces for specific books, Times was designed for the newspaper, Frutiger for signage at Charles de Gaulle airport, Helvetica to appeal to certain graphic designers, Bell Gothic for the American telephone books, Gill for a shopfront, Century for a magazine, Meta for the German post office.

> There are certain laws of perception as well as cultural traditions which a typeface has to adhere to.
> It has to look almost like all the others, but...
> just be a little different

His process for beginning a new typeface is simple and straightforward. “Identify a problem – like space saving, bad paper, low resolution, on-screen use – then find typefaces that almost work but could be improved,” he explains. “Study them. Note the approaches and failings. Sleep on it, then start sketching without looking at anything else.”

Although Spiekermann has quite high values concerning a practical and sustainible use of his designs on their own, he has never refused to work on projects for clients that produce polluting and in a way superflous „products“ as the automotive or the aeronautic industry.

Futures

In the post-apocalyptic novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep” Philip K Dick suggested a bleak future, layer upon layer of toxic dust covers the earth, and those that can afford it programme a machine daily to provide them with a cocktail of drugs, so they find it easier can tolerate their lives. Consumerism, and how a person’s possessions are perceived to relate to their worth, is also dealt with in the book. Each person still living on earth is expected by society to own an animal of some kind, it is seen as humanity’s duty to preserve a small part of the natural world, which has long since disintegrated. If they cannot afford an animal, they will own a robot, with the aim of fooling their neighbours into thinking they own an animal, so vital is this ownership to their contribution to society. The rarity of the animal determines how wealthy, or well connected the owner is, and therefore affects everything, from the individual’s sense of self-worth, to his standing in the community, leaving people depressed and apathetic towards their lives. The animal is of course an allegory for products and capital owned by people in the West today. It is a very real fear that a similar situation to this may actually come about, in terms of the consumerism industry. Westerners are already encouraged to consume as much as possible, the bourgeoisie in particular, are encouraged to place far too much importance on looks and possessions, this culture seems set to develop and grow dramatically in the future, because, of course, it is essential for the economy for this to happen. The future of design is in danger of becoming completely saturated with one-step-better products, people will compare and judge others solely on the speed and calibre of their car or phone, as they do in “Do Androids…” Many factors are to blame, but the design industry, in particular advertising, has a lot to answer for. We must be sure that the future of design does not continue to encourage this culture.

Artificial Natural

There is a belief among human beings that we are above or separate from nature due to our advances in scientific research and knowledge. Because of this we seem to lack the ability to interact with the ‘artificial natural’ in the same way as we do for ‘real’ natural beings and environments.

Artist Eduardo Kac, the creator of the “GFP Bunny” Alba, has approached this issue with his transgenic artwork, which Kac says is ‘a new art form based on the use of genetic engineering to transfer natural or synthetic genes to an organism, to create unique living beings. This must be done with great care, with acknowledgment of the complex issues thus raised and, above all, with a commitment to respect, nurture, and love the life thus created.’¹ The appearance of Alba in the media caused a public dialogue about her social integration. Similar to the worlds attachment to Dolly, the first cloned sheep, Alba is a very special and unique animal looked after by the artist and his family, ‘she immediately awoke in me a strong and urgent sense of responsibility for her well-being.’¹ Kac is questioning and trying to define ‘interspecies communication between humans and a transgenic mammal’¹. Alba is at the centre of Kac’s campaign to create ‘public respect and appreciation for the emotional and cognitive life of transgenic animals’.

Kac has used media attention skillfully to communicate his message as an art project and social experiment; where as the famous scientific breakthrough of the ‘mouse with the human ear’ is not an art project, a purely scientific advance that was reported in a harsher light. In 1999, ‘the anti-genetics group, Turning Point Project, placed a full-page ad in the New York Times showing the photo of the mouse with the human ear, with a misleading caption that read, "This is an actual photo of a genetically engineered mouse with a human ear on its back". In truth, the mouse was not genetically engineered, and the "ear" had no human cells in it.’² These examples show how design aids the representation of scientific advances; a designer would approach this issue more holistically, showing the public the science and social ethics.

¹ http://www.ekac.org/gfpbunny.html

² http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1644154.htm

Image: http://www.ekac.org/gfpbunny.html

Floating Imagery

The virtual world is an ever-expanding fascination. Take for example the usage of Second Life the ability for the user to freely express himself/herself in a totally complete virtual world. Whether this involves socialising, purchasing goods or build new communities this 3D cyber space allows the user to interact with other registered people without actually knowing them.

‘For a long time 3D movies and TV shows have been a bit of a gimmick. They have been used to re-energise a tired franchise, help a film stand out at a crowded box office or to give TV viewers a glimpse of what the future might hold.’ BBC News

This use of ‘mid-air effect’ interaction has always been a very well developed way of communicating what you see on a screen to actually physical form. The IMAX cinema has been an ever-growing, successful and alternative form of visual communication. The recent development of this communication has been expression in most modern sci-fi films. For example the computer interface in the film Minority Report, and the way Jedi’s visually communicate in Star Wars.














Physical interaction is ultimately the next step forward especially with the growing obesity rate and the future risk of obesity and heart disease especially among children. The Nintendo Wii and other digital formats have caught this market by producing sensitive remote controls that interact with the users movements to produce an almost identical reaction with the characters on-screen.
The way 3D imagery has developed and evolved, the future idea of having a virtual pet or Tamagotchi would not consist of being only on a screen but an actual floating virtual simulation. This could then be developed for educational practices such as teaching or watching intricate surgical operations. Getting up close and personal with wildlife programmes or understanding sea creatures without actually leaving the ‘armchair’. The ability to reminisce in pre-recorded memories such as weddings and birthday parties on a normal analogue TV screen.

Energy forecast

With rising sea levels washing away inhabited islands such as Lohachara, (once home to 10,000 people) has driven major costal communities inland. The risk is faced with flooding and strong winds destroying homes and agriculture.

The world is in need of a new energy source to compensate for industrialised global warming. In the light of climate change, the world urgently needs to acquire different energy resources with the ability to deliver 'cleaner renewable energy'. One notable company has the potential to make a 'major' contribution to the future energy needs.

Marine current turbines (MCT), is the world leader in the development of new technology for exploring tidal currents for large-scale power generators. The turbines run with tides of renewable energy, producing no pollution and delivering to a predictable timetable. Marine turbines work, in similarity to submerged windmills, but are driven by flowing water rather than air. They are mainly installed in the sea at locations with high tidal currents. The water currents have a major advantage of being an energy resource, which is mostly 'predictable' as tides that cause them. It is more reliable than wind or wave energy that appear randomly based on the weather system. The technology consists of twin axial flow rotors of 15m to 20m in diameter, each driving a generator via a gearbox similar to a hydroelectric turbine or wind turbine. the twin power units are set into a hole drilled into the seabed. The submerged turbine, depending on the local flow pattern and peak velocity, will be grouped in arrays of wind farms under the sea. The same way wind turbines in a wind farm are set out in rows to catch the wind.

'Environmentalists have been notified that the new technology does not offer any serious threat to fish or marine mammals'. The rotor turns slowly in its place, compared to a ships propeller, typically runs 10 times as fast and moving continuously.

"Since the world is water based, why not harness energy from this big pool?"

Our societies have a deep relationship with the notion of artificial natural. There are many examples showing how the human uses this notion and how the users are believing these fake truths. One of the main areas which is implemented into our societies and which is linked to this subject is cinema. People all around the world learn how to simulate and recreate feelings and actions in the most natural way possible: they are called actors. The ones that are talented will then often be recognised for their skills. People like you and me worship some of these comedians. And we respect them for fooling us each time we watch one of their performances. Things look really natural but a lot of effort is actually made to make moments "feel" natural. But technicians actually designed a whole process to seduce the viewer and his mind to let him fall into a confusion between real and unreal worlds.

Another example of our tolerance towards the artificial natural can be found in the concept of the Zoo. In this case artificial habitats are being created for the animals. But this might be a way to fool the human instead of the animal. The animal certainly understands that he is not in his natural habitat and would probably prefer to live in its original environment. However the human gets the illusion of the natural habitat being a faithful replica of nature and its freedom.

But in both cases this method is used to bring something positive to the user such as education and knowlege. However to reach this level of intelligence we are obliged to take the path of naïvety towards what we see and feel. We often go over this lack of realism because we want to simply enjoy a moment of entertainment. And entertainment is based on telling people stories but realism can make stories more effective. This is when the intervention of an artificial natural process is needed.

Nature, New and Improved:

In Stores 2032

In his book “Travels in Hyperreality”, Umberto Eco explores America’s cultural shortcomings, and how we as a society always strive to fabricate emulations of life in an effort to create something that is better than what reality can offer us.

Through Disneyworld, Eco finds the perfect example of hyperreality, where everything is fashioned to be brighter, more colourful and entertaining than every day life. In this civilisation, there is no war or risk; there is only fun, sweet food and adventure. Every facet of this world is artificial, from the plastic trees, to the animatronics that impersonate the wild. Nothing is left to nature, or to chance, everything is strictly controlled monitored and planned. When leaving “you risk feeling homesick for Disneyland” and miss the safe yet stimulating environment “where the wild animals don’t have to be coaxed. Disneyland tells us that technology can give us more reality that nature can”.

Imagine an apple you can grow at a touch of a button, a dog that will obey every command, grass that changes colour to your mood and weather that is not just predictable, but controllable.

So when the technology becomes available for us to replace nature, having all the benefits with none of the drawbacks, what will stop us from doing so? If humanity is so fond of these farcical impersonations, why would we settle for real when we can have something that is more than real? The fight against genetically modified foods shows us that humanity is not ready to let go and that we are still prepared to contest for what was here before us but perhaps it is just a matter of time before our sentimentality wanes and we leave our roots behind.


Umberto, E. (1987) Travels in Hyperreality, Harvest Books

Climbing Walls with Carbon Nanotubes

The human being has always tried to go beyond their possibilities, they don’t have wings to fly, don’t have gills to dive and also they don’t have claws to climb.
But sometimes just observing the nature, humans have achieved lots of great discoveries and inventions, from the design of a plane or helicopter and the principles of aerodynamics based in the observation of birds and insects, until the creation of the submarines to explore the secrets of the ocean through the observation of compression and decompression systems in the sperm whales.
Now is almost ready and under further research a new material inspired in the microscopic hairs that the gecko lizard possess in their feet, which will be able to allow the humans to access to some activities that didn’t have before and to improve enormously some existent ones.
The prospect of being able to emulate a gecko and walk up a wall and across the ceiling has come a step closer to reality. Researchers at the University of Akron and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) have begun to work out how to make a material coated with synthetic gecko hairs. This new material (developed by engineers mimicking the hairs on gecko feet by growing carbon nanotubes in bundles), has been created to match the nimble lizard's incredible grip, and researchers say that the applications will be endless.
We could make super-grip shoes for athletes and tyres that hold the road better in all weathers, for example. And in Hollywood, actors playing superheroes like Spiderman or Neo from The Matrix could climb walls and walk on the ceiling without the studios resorting to computer graphics.
The ability of some animal species to develop tools to survive in their eco-systems and that have needed thousands of years to improve and perform, now can be emulated by humans using their technologies to make more efficient the way they live, just through some years of investigation and testing.

Pablo Milara

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3726

http://www.technologyreview.com/Nanotech/18966/

Artificial Natural: Untouchable- more natural, more creepy

There are some ways “to be natural” by technology. Humanoid-robots or CG is approaching to “the natural” from 100% artificial, a combination of metals or a drawing in computers, while biotechnology is starting from altering and manipulating existing nature. Which approach can be comfortable for people’s mentality? What kinds of “fear” are there in approach to the “untouchable” nature? There are difficulties of ethics in artificial natural.,

The “uncanny valley” is the term used by robotics-scientists or computer graphic designers to describe “the unnerving feeling that occurs when something looks and acts much like a human, but quite clearly isn't” [1]. Even though people know it is artificial, they unconsciously recognise quite human like robots or CG as a real human. However, at the same time, they can perceive a little unnaturalness, which makes the “uncanny” feeling. As examples, recent humanoid robots or ‘Gollum’ in the film ‘The Lord of the Ring’ and intended-unnatural character of ‘Mr. Incredible’ are usually mentioned. To recreate human being is a kind of untouchable fields for human, even though they do not have “life” and outside of the problems about human-rights.

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2007/10/technology-to-creep-you-out.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCPgJ39-oUI&NR=1

In ‘The Politics of The Artificial”, idea of “simulacra” or “Goddess” is used for considering the division of nature and human [2]. I, from eastern country, actually feel uncanny from the video above but sometimes I hear that western countries have more mental resistance for humanoid robot rather than biotechnology while eastern countries are opposite of them because of the cultural difference from religions. It is a non academic myth but at least we should remark there are some levels of ethics from global common to local common.

The ethics for artificial natural is an unclear field and tends to be more subjective because it more relies on people’s psychological matters rather than physical problems such as environmental disruptions. How can we draw the border line between “touchable” and “untouchable” in the nature by various senses of ethics and will it be interruption for our further positive/negative development for “Spaceship Earth”?

[1] ”Technology to creep you out” <http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2007/10/technology-to-creep-you-out.html> (accessed on 05 March 2008)
[2] Margolin, Victor. The Politics of the Artificial p.107-120. (London: University of Chicago Press, Ltd., 2002)
“The Uncanny Valley”
<http://www.arclight.net/~pdb/nonfiction/uncanny-valley.html> (accessed on 05 March 2008)

Image: <http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/06/kansei-makes-a-comeback-with-reactive-facial-expressions/>

Designing Panic Buttons

Immediately after the events of September 11th news reports told us that gas-masks were selling out all over the place. (1)
You'd have thought people would have calmed down a bit by now, but apparently not..

I found a company called 'City Survive', (2) whose website offers a variety of products for eventualities such as a bird-flu outbreak or biological terror attack, and noticed immediately that almost all the products were apparently SOLD OUT! I laughed to myself. Is this real or just a marketing ploy to make vulnerable people feel even more worried?

The website even features a feed of the latest terrorism news, so you can keep up to date with when you might next need to use your shiny new gas mask...

How would owning a gas mask make someone feel? Is what is being sold here merely a sense
of reassurance or a real means of protection? Presumably these masks do what they claim, but as this diagram shows, the real risk of such an eventuality actually happening is small compared to the real risks that we seem less concerned about:

(3)

The way these items are sold is not necessarily ethical. It is in the best interest of the
companies marketing them have to create a sense of risk or hype up and intensify existing risk.
Are they doing an honest service that provides reassurance? Perhaps not when undeniably money is being made from people's fear.

Excerpt from 'City Survive' website:

"It is accepted by most that London is high on a list of potential terror targets.
The next attack could come in the form of more bombs bringing with them the potential for fire and the dangerous gases in smoke, or a more sophisticated attack involving chemical or biological agents.
City Survive's response to these threats is to bring you a range of compact, lightweight, easy to
carry gas masks and respirators, and our innovative City Survival Kit™, each designed to give you the best possible chance of surviving a specific terror driven scenario."

If something disasterous really did happen, having a ^TM on your survival kit isn't going to make it any more effective.

The rather scary look of this mask, the 'Potomac Emergency Escape Mask' (pictured) is clearly unnecessary - it doesn't need to be yellow for a start, but perhaps if it was presented with a minimal, purely functional exterior it would offer less protection psychologically? The name is also over-dramatic. Up to now we've got along fine just calling them gas-masks.

When it comes to thinking about potential impending disaster the inevitable conclusion is that the existence of however many survival contraptions cannot prevent something actually happening. If owning one helps a person sleep better at night, I guess that's fine. But lets not get too worked up.

I found an interesting example of how the design world (obviously I'm making a distinction between commercial product design (the gas-masks) and non-commercial design/art) has reacted to risk culture.
Susanna Hertrich's work at the Design Interactions department, RCA, focuses on enhancing human perception of and reaction to risk. Her piece, Alertness Enhancing Device stimulates goosebumps and makes neck-hair stand up, making the user more alert and ready for real danger. (3)

Pretty cool.

1.http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/sep/26/afghanistan.september111

2.http://www.citysurvive.com/anti_terror_gas_masks.htm#survival_kit
3.http://www.we-make-money-not-art.com/archives/2008/02/alertness-enhancing-device.php

MR. SMISH & MADAME BUTTLY RAZOR WIRE

In the following part id like to come back once more to the different roles of the designer and the artist and how they sometimes should be distinguished more clearly especially when design pieces are exhibited.
MR. SMISH & MADAME BUTTLY RAZOR WIRE is a wire fence with butterfly-shaped razors. It has been part of the MOMAs 2004 "SAFE – design takes on a risk" exhibition. To underline his critical statement about rich and poor designer Matthias Aron Megyeri presents his exhibition piece as a buyable product of mass production on his website www.sweetdreamssecurity.com. The reason why it fails as a product is because it doesn’t go to the ground of the problem. It fulfils the need to mask the growing amount of security products in our environment but it refuses to take on the real problem, which is the growing gap between the rich and the poor. The ironic nature of his statement can be already detected in his profile where he is described as a designer, „who chooses to use his products as vehicles to explore societal issues, following a critical approach closer to journalism than conventional product design.“ I’d like to contrast this piece of design with a quote of Volker Albus at „Zeitzonen 2006“ in Vienna at the University of Applied Sciences“: „Art says no, Design says no, but...“. As one of the duties of art is to question the authorities, irony is an adequate instrument to point out grievances. But design should always give an answer to a problem rather than just highlighting it. The butterfly doesn’t propose any solution to the problem. And as a product is always designed for a user it should convey a positive attitude rather than an ironic one. Sure exhibition pieces have got a right to exist but sometimes it should be questioned whether it would be possible to produce a working product as well.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
www.sweetdreamssecurity.com

design for survival

Design for Survival

With the number of ‘slums’ in developing and Third World countries rising to an astonishing amount, there has been focus on tackling the source and coming up with solutions.

In ‘Planet of Slums’, Mike Davis has a world wide political approach to the mater and presents a lot of well supported data as if to raise more awareness of the problem. He seems to make the problem a global one and ultimately asks questions of governments and political influences of the past and present. However, it’s somewhat obvious that the UN and world leading countries have a vast impact on the increase or decrease in urbanization and slums through their advances to problem solving and help strategies.

On the whole, Davis’ report is one that is most helpful when you don’t know what slums are and how they came about.

Meanwhile, some contemporary design takes the basic needs for survival for granted and focuses on making other aspect of modern life better or more efficient. This is the point that organisations like ‘design for the other 90%’ are raising through their campaigns and actions in developing and third world countries. Within their ideology they’ve split survival into six sections, Shelter, Health, Education, Water, Energy and Transport. Each one has a clear aim and attempts to achieve it in the most simplest and cost efficient way through projects supported by bigger product developing companies. Most of these projects seem quiet far fetched and sometimes miss the point like the ‘One Laptop per Child’ campaign, which ignores the use of scaffolding in an educational environment that is far behind compared to ones in the developed world.

As products, items like the portable light bag seem to be very sustainable but when you look at these campaigns as a whole the ones that work best are those that take a sustainable approach to the society they’re introduced to. Amongst other things design has the power to create culture whereby, instead of building shelter for the homeless people, you teach those people how to gather equipment and build houses independently. KickStart, a construction firm that work with other organisations to prevent poverty in Third World countries, make design solutions like the ‘latrine cover slabs’ for more affordable sanitation. The process is designed by KickSart and uses some of their products but it’s introduced in such a way that locals have overstepped the first hurdle of cost effective production and can sustain their development autonomously.

http://other90.cooperhewitt.org/

http://kickstart.org/home/

http://www.inhabitat.com/

http://bldgblog.blogspot.com/2006/05/interview-with-mike-davis-part-1.html

Artificial Natural "Give It Back"

Give It Back 

Artificial/ Natural

It is a struggle to categorise things or events into natural or artificial. One of the reasons that it is such a struggle is that it is, in itself, an artificial question. For tens of thousands of years our continual interactions with ecosystems have shaped human experience to the extent that we are no longer able to easily distinguish between what is natural and what is unnatural (artificial). The relevant question is not “artificial or natural”, but what is “of man” and what is “of nature”.

For example, when people look at a pleasant pastoral scene of honest labourers working in a field to bring in the harvest, they may think “how natural”, when in fact the opposite is true. Agriculture (probably the human activity we deem most natural) has almost completely wiped out the millions of hectares of broad oak forest that covered Europe. This isn’t a scene of natural harmony any more than the rotten cooling towers of Drax power station (singularly our largest emitter of carbon dioxide).

They are both distinctly “of man” and not “of nature” no matter how much more “natural” one scene may appear and how much more “artificial” the other appears.

Why is this distinction worthwhile pointing out?

It is a critical distinction because many people think that a return to some idyllic pre-industrial setting will save the human race from the trauma of global warming, but while this idea may be romantic, it may also be deluded.

Industry and urbanisation (“artificial” and evil) are usually singled out as the great contributors to the impending problems of the planet. While this is true, the greater truth is that agriculture (so called “natural” and good) is equally a significant threat to the planet. We imagine that factories, roads and houses blight the U.K. when agriculture in fact covers 70% of the country compared with only 14% for urban and suburban areas. That coverage leaves very little room for forest and woodland (12%)to act as either carbon sink or wildlife habitat.

We urgently need to return both urban and rural land to managed wilderness to help absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and to reduce the pressure on habitat that threatens wildlife everywhere. This means that we must live more densely (urban as opposed to suburban) and that agriculture needs to be more efficient (more food per hectare) and more effective (more crops for people and less feed for livestock) so that we can start the long overdue process of giving back land to nature for reforestation and the reintroduction of threatened species.

Most of all we need to think clearly about the changes needed to improve this planet and not fall for emotive and arbitrary distinctions between what is artificial and what is natural, as it hasn’t been a relevant question for some time.

Humankind stepped beyond natural thousands of years ago.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/graphics/2007/11/14/eapower114.jpg
www.hayinart.com/2004_10.html
Statistics from D.E.F.R.A.

Supplement to the post below

'if it is our basic human nature to annex, exploit, and incorporate nonbiological stuff deep into our mental profiles - then the question is not whether we go that route, but in what ways we actively sculpt and shape it. By seeing ourselves as we truly are, we increase the chances that our future biotechnological unions will be good ones.'(Clark, 2003)

Artificial or natural?

People, have always liked to categorize things. Good and bad, moral and immoral, artificial and natural.

You may think that artificial and natural have a more clear distinction then something as subjective as morality and you may be right. However the beginning of the industrial revolution seems to have initiated the time when people first stepped way past their limitations. Mass production was invented and instantaneously one person could do the work of fifty.

One person doing the work of fifty, with the aid of a machine, or is it a machineperson doing the work of fifty people. We have cyborgized ourselves, adding to our ability’s. The question is, has this made us artificial? Or are we ourselves still natural but the technologies we use artificial, even if those technologies are placed within us?

(http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/artificial-heart-abiocor-hand.jpg)

This is clearly debatable, surly though changing the very essence of what makes up an organism, its genes, is not debatable. You create a hybrid and this hybrid can only be called artificial or at the very least ‘man-made.’

However the insertion of new genes to produce wanted traits in an animal or crop is not a new idea. For century’s farmers have chosen the strongest, fittest, fattest of their live stock to breed in order for the next generation to be stronger, fitter, fatter. A form of controlled evolution if you will.

Even farms themselves haven’t always been around, the fact that farms are there at all has changed the landscape and habitat of the area, it has changed behaviors of animals, even pushed some animals to the brink of extinction and yet we have been almost re-programmed to consider this natural. Could extinction ever be considered natural?

As the modern world progresses we have gotten more and more ambitious with our ‘projects,’ now there is even talk of pharms where you could literally farm pharmaceuticals. Now even tobacco, the hailed bad guy of the crops could be responsible for saving about 10 million people from contracting HIV in Africa. Ironic, insane, irresponsible, incredible, ingenious. Are among the many things I could say about this project.

'Pure good is pointless, absurd, and, wherever there is a purpose for anything, you will find the Devil lying in wait.'

Vilem Flusser's quote that some of you may agree with and some may not. But certainly rise the question whether are all our pursuits that we are making, with all our knowledge and noble wisdom really aiming for good.

Here are the two examples of 'fighting-talk' to abandon the fur 'application' in Fashion industry with different points of view. One, as we all may know and be aware of is www.peta.org/ against animal cruelty, and their typical ad ...

<
Engaging with what we feel when we see this image, we must think beyond our comprehension and think not only of a 'Total Animal Liberation' but also contemplate with our violent tactic, blackmailing and bogus political campaigns.


Whereas, the picture below is showing the models in striding to a rather alarming mix of bleats and beats ...
>


Bear in mind that Jean-Paul Gaultier's recent show for Paris Fashion Week played Michael Jackson's 'Thriller' song in the background competing with animal calls blaring over the speakers. Yet Gaultier's clear courting of controversy detracts from his notable fur-free creations. Was he unleashing the other side of human showing who we really are or was he just taking the piss while PETA seethes?

<
Here is another example of PETA's campaign targeting children to seduce them into believing in their vision by seducing them with comics, and they are providing teachers with biased lesson plans and doing seminars at schools.

One more quote on Ethics and Morality ...
'Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.'
PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk, in the September 1989 issue of Vogue, Sep 1989


We need to acknowledge for ourselves whether 'are we on the way from or to the first principles' (Plato) before we can judge.

Let the 'other' 90% design for us

[Time and Design]

Each second, minute, hour of our day is conducted by the culture that we inhabit. In our western society time organizes even constricts our lives, we manage our time by what’s happening right here, right now and we tend to focus on the individual rather than the wider community; according to our western economic thought ‘time is money’. The book ‘Eternally Yours’ begins to question whether this in tern effects how we disconnect ourselves from long-term sustainability.

It is undeniable that we live in a throw away culture, which is reflected in the way our culture approaches time. “We can see the past but we can’t influence it. We can influence the future but we can’t see it”[1]. This example illustrates how we don’t design for the future but for now, and as consumers we demand and push this cycle. Design for the other 90% looks at ways we can make a small sustainable intervention into a less developed country or society. However have we ever stopped to question that they survive by being sustainable; where as we survive by designing the next throw away item. Perhaps it is time we took some of their practices and reflected them into our culture.

One sustainable project that was implemented in small communities in southern Africa looks at children’s ‘play time’. “The zero energy pump is specifically designed playground roundabout that pumps groundwater from boreholes into sealed tanks”[2]. This intervention is powered by the children having fun and turning the roundabout. It raises groundwater as much as 1400l an hour. The programme is funded by the advertising for public health companies which also encourages local businesses. This example illustrates how time links hand with fun and produces a sustainable object, and ultimately benefits a community.

Is it time that we let ‘the other 90%’ design for us. If they are capable of living along side nature, then we can too. Time and sustainable design go hand in hand; if we were to change our ideals of time then perhaps sustainable design will just become that of the norm, rather than a fashionable commodity.

[1] Hite, E. (2004) Eternally Yours Time in design. olo publishers, Rotterdam.
[2] Cumberlidge, C and Musgrave, (2007) Design and Landscape for People, Thames and Hudson, China
Image: http://www.tablarasagallery.com/assets/images/playpump.jpg

Artificial Natural: Summer All year-round

One year consists of four seasons, winter, spring, summer and autumn. As the season changes, the temperature naturally changes and the activities that individuals do will change as well. Different places in the world have certain climates in order to allow particular activities to occur, E.g. Hawaii for surfing





In the nature of human beings, we will do certain activities led by the climate, but excluding places like Seagaia Ocean dome in Southern Japan. The Ocean dome was build in 1993 and it is recorded as the largest indoor water park. The Ocean dome has a controlled temperature of 28°C to 30°C in the water for all year-round. However, controlling the temperature of the indoor swimming park does not fulfill its theme of being an ocean. Therefore, a wave machine is used to give waves for the surfers, flame-spitting volcano is planted onto the landscape, retractable roof to open up in sunny days and close up is a blue sky ceiling in bad weather. This Ocean dome also used technology to crush white marble into sand, so it would not stick onto your skin. All these artificial products was used to imitate a real beach, to let people experience a summer beach time whilst the weather naturally does not allow them to.
As a result, millions of people visited this artificial beach. They are able to visit the Ocean dome in winter, as it can produce the same time excitement people have about summer. Although this excitement about enjoying the summer in winter time fades. This is because no one will look forward to summer anymore, because going to beach will no longer be the advantage of summer as they can experience it in the winter.
Since the Ocean dome was built, indoor water parks have been increasing around the world, such as the Tropical Island in Berlin. As a result, individuals no longer look forward to summer and feel excited for the change of the season due to the increase of artificial natural manufacturing.

http://www.impactlab.com/2006/03/02/japans-indoor-man-made-beach/
http://www.japannewsreview.com/travel/20070605page_id=71

Design for the other 90%

It could be argued that designing for ‘the other 90%’ is patronising and demeaning as it’s a western approach to solving a third world problem, dealing with complex dynamics that are often alien to our own. However, it is impossible to deny that although we are a long way off amending the bigger picture, small design interventions can make a huge difference to the quality of life in desperate times and situations, and some interventions, such as water sanitation facilities are unable to fall into the category of interference as it is a bare necessity for everyone.

‘Each year 2.2 million people die from diseases caused by lack of safe water and basic sanitation. The nature of the contamination is varied, viral, microbial, parasitic and chemical contaminates all contribute to this staggering death toll’1. Red Button Design have designed a water sanitation, transport and storage device for this specific problem – known as ROSS (Reverse Osmosis Sanitation System - seen below). It is aimed at the developing world, where clean water sources are not locally available. ‘The user would roll the ROSS unit to the water source and fill the tank before pushing it back to the community. As the device is moved the mechanical motion of the wheels drives a filtration system through the tank. Clean water can then be stored in the vessel and dispensed when needed’1.

This is just one of the many thousands of designs out there, trying to tackle current issue; undoubtedly many more designs will follow and it is important this trend continues.

1 http://www.thisisredbutton.co.uk/index.php?mod=ross
Images- http://www.thisisredbutton.co.uk/index.php?mod=ross

Artificial Natural

[Can we be classed as artificial?]

Mother earth ‘as the giver & sustainer of life’[1] has allowed us to explore, create, learn and play within her nurtering arms. However as time and technology have progressed we have become witness to our ecological footprint, and its consequences are becoming more apparent to the naked eye. It is obvious that the “Earth’s ecosystem cannot sustain current levels of economic activity and material consumption”[2]. It begins to pose questions of what is natural and whats not, and where that divide lies.

The boundaries between the artificial and the natural are becoming increasingly undistinguishable. This division is continually challenged to question what is organic in comparison to that which has been tampered and played with. What is natural and what is artificial. An example of this can be identified if Klara Orosz’s work.

The Gallery ‘Ternderpixel’ which launched on the 15th of September showcased Orosz’s most recent work from graduating at Goldsmiths. It ‘invited spectators to sit, touch and play while blurring the natural and artificial boundaries’[3]. The installation used a combination of wood and faux grass to create a network of sofas which allowed people to interact with the material used. It was designed to question the contrast between the natural and artificial boundaries, and also the natural within the artificial.

With this subject in mind it can be questioned whether man itself could be classed as artificial. Le Mettrie’s once stated “Man himself is a machine”, which could be illustrated by the developments in technology and the mechanized drive behind our constant desire for what’s ‘new’ or ‘fashionable’. It also reminds us of the concept of Stelarc’s extra ear, which asks the question- at what point we as humans become artificial? Is it by those objects that we consume, or by those that we depend on? Are we simply turning into a collection of commodities?


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Earth
[2] Wackernagel, M and Rees, W. (1996) Our Ecological Footprint. New Society Publishers, Canada
[3] http://www.tenderpixel.com/october.html

Image: http://www.tenderpixel.com/october.html

Artificial Natural

Where is the line between natural and artificial? For thousands of years humans have been playing with the idea of natural, and food production is a great example. Farming and selective breeding on a basic level is artificial natural. The use of GM crops, and the creation of ‘natural environments’ is taking this a step or two further. Is it right that in supermarkets we can find most fruit and vegetables all year around, regardless of seasons?

Tomatoes undergo breeding programmes in order to make them bigger and redder 1. This is just for the shelf. They are more appealing to the majority if perfect, it’s now expected that food available is in perfect form, and many people when shopping judge the aesthetics of what they are buying – rummaging through what’s available, looking for the most uniform selection.

Now not only the colour and size of fruit is altered, but also the shape. With what is considered a consumer driven solution to a natural problem, watermelons in Japan are on sale in cubed form 2. The idea behind this is that the fruit is now more easily packed, stored and eventually cut. These watermelons are however in some cases triple the cost of a regular watermelon, making them fashionable food, and available predominantly to the wealthy. If food production falls under the artificial natural category, is square fruit really a big deal, as it is just an extension of what is already implemented on a global scale? Or are there limits to what humans should interfere with?

1 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1390088.stm
2 http://www.bioethics.upenn.edu/highschool/Webfair/?v=2

Image:- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1390088.stm

'Qualified' Social Commentator

Alfredo Jarr is currently showing at the South London gallery, he is a Chilean artist working in New York.

I went to see his show on Saturday and became interested in his work titled 'The sound of Silence'; this work deals with the ever debated issue of documentary photography and it's seemingly necessary relationship with suffering.

The film looks at the Pulitzer prize winning image by Kevin Carter of a famine victim overlooked by a vulture (see right).

The film is a poignant view into the history of the photographer; his background and experience of fighting, how, and why he came to be a photojournalist. However most interestingly to me it dealt with the criticism Kevin Carter felt as a result of selling his photograph;

"The man adjusting his lens to take just the right frame of her suffering might just as well be a predator, another vulture on the scene."1

The public wanted to know why he did not intervene and help the child. Perhaps this criticism was a factor that led to his suicide shortly after receiving the Pulitzer prize for this image.

I was thinking about when "designing for the other 90%", and designers insistence to design to raise awareness, and the implications this has. As Jaar would seemingly argue (from the slant of his film) Carter may not have saved the girl he was photographing, however by raising awareness of the situation maybe this can or has had a more felt effect.

I was trying to work out, if a room full of us talking about designing for the other 90% was hypocritical, and whether or not this highlighted the problems of a global design; the title, design for the other 90% suggests (by using a statistic) you do not know these people, what they want, how they suffer, and so on.

In which case, the only thing we can really do is raise awareness? Can we even do that? Carter had grown up in South Africa and had fought twice- he had experienced war, seen murder, and starving children, maybe he was 'qualified' as a true social commentator on an issue that was unfolding around him.

I feel this is a difficult subject, obviously any attempts to raise awareness of current political issues are important, and as artists/designers we are social commentators, but i would also like to think one has a little more potential to shape futures rather than simply telling people what is going on, especially when we don't even know.

'The Sound of Silence' is showing until 6th April 2008: http://www.southlondongallery.org/

1 http://www.thisisyesterday.com/ints/KCarter.html

Nature Can Heal

As we head towards the start of a great and large ecological movement, we realized that people are all in all at the mercy of nature. Humans creates and redesign tools in nature that functions. By doing so, humans acknowledges that there is in fact a gap between people and nature. In this respect, we have all be mistaken. As the planet dies away, we are realizing that humans are not god.

"We are first and foremost biological beings."

By creating cities, we have moved ourselves from what our human bodies are used to and instead, into an alien setting where everyday our bodies are challenged to the max.

“Our health is precariously connected to the natural ordering system of the planet. The man made environment should fully realize this connection and support the users health.”

Today’s world, architecture is seen as the battle between gravity and imagination and an understanding of sense and space. No longer is architecture about adapting to nature. It is now seen as an adaptation to cities.

Citing

Cooper, Graham. Art and Nature: Healing . Book Art and Architecture, 2006. Epping Green Hertford, UK.