unstrungstudio

There is an excellent entry on Design Observer about the work of Stephen Doyle.

posted by J.  # 11:42 AM 0 Comments

I have been knee deep in work lately, without much time for blogging. There is so much that I could tell you about, but in this case, I think that the web sites really do the talking. There is an entire galaxy of generative art out there that is both beautiful and astoundingly complex. Check out a few of these finds, and if you have the time, download Processing and take it for a spin. Very interesting stuff.

• Processing
• Complexification
• Ben Fry
• Casey Reas
• Abstract Codex

posted by J.  # 5:08 PM 0 Comments

This is a quick morning plug. I was looking at Wired, which frequently sports excellent information graphics, and I noticed that more than a few have been created by Catalog Tree. There is some excellent work on their web site. Well worth a look.

posted by J.  # 8:54 AM 0 Comments

During the past few days, I have immersed myself in a world of information graphics, programming, visually complex graphs and generative art. These are all relatively new areas for me. I am researching a few projects that involve the aesthetic arrangement of large information sets. I am amazed at the lack of definitive information, no pun intended, on information graphics. (Looks like I'll be purchasing The Visual Display of Quantitative Information tonight.)

In many cases, the graphics are simply designed poorly , i.e. they fail on either a functional or aesthetic level. In other cases, they are absolutely magical, and instead of viewing them on a computer screen, I wish that I could project them on a wall. New technologies give the information graphics an entirely new dimension of interactivity. I'll post the stuff on which I am working in the future.

Visual Complexity was my best find so far. The web site features a large number of compelling projects, from WikiMindMap to FIDGT Visualize.

posted by J.  # 5:39 PM 0 Comments

At the AIGA conference, I was able to attend a session that focused on the Olympic design process, an issue that is near and dear to most Portfolio Center students. This was a panel session that included Dana Arnett of VSA Partners, Patrick Cox of Wolff Olins and Min Wang, who is the head of the China Central Academy of Fine Arts, China's largest design and art school.

Each of the speakers provided a different perspective on the Olympic design process. Additionally, each of them discussed their final designs in different terms. Dana Arnett kicked off the discussion with a review of the VSA approach to the Chicago bid. He walked through the creation of their first logo, which ultimately got kicked to the curb by the IOC because you can't use Olympic iconography in your designs. (FYI, it's a torch.)

VSA's approach to the logo was thoughtful and compelling. Dana walked us through the research that led to their final logo, but he also showed us a series of logos that did not make the cut. The first logo was beautiful, but when the IOC snuffed it, VSA picked up the torch again, pun intended, and designed a new logo, which is also compelling.

Patrick Cox, in contrast, spent the majority of his talk discussing the approach and relevance of the London logo. He started his presentation by saying that they intentionally avoided leaping figures, brush strokes and stars. His logic, to say the least, was compelling, and it cast the logo in an entirely new light for me. (The logo, as you might remember, became a design whipping boy upon its release.)

Don't get me wrong, I still think that it was a mistake, but it does achieve the goals that Patrick outlined. The London logo is meant to capture that cheek and rebelliousness of London. It literally breaks all the rules, using the numbers as a container into which new ideas and content can be poured. They are doing some interesting stuff with it, and they have basically stuck to their guns, keeping the logo around.

Min Wang's presentation was a little different. He had a number of pieces to show, and he mainly focused on the work that has been produced by CAFA's students and faculty for the Beijing Olympics. He showed the logo, pictograms, identity, medals, torch design and posters. All of the pieces melded Olympic design with Chinese artifacts and ideas.

At the end of the presentations, I was impressed with the amount of thought and time that each speaker had devoted to the designs. Nothing was designed without a significant amount of consideration. I also had a new perspective on what an Olympic logo should do. I am biased, but of all the logos, I preferred the first VSA logo, which really captured the spirit of Chicago. The London logo is, well, the London logo. SOme great design is being done for the Beijing games, but the pictograms are really something in my opinions, simple, elegant and thoughtful.

posted by J.  # 1:16 PM 4 Comments

There is a pretty large amount of spectacular floating out their. A few suggestions follow.

• At the AIGA conference, Christopher Baker amazed many with his 20/20 presentation and taught us, yet again, that when complex technology is combined with innovative thinking the results can be beautiful.
• Ffffound was blogged about on Speak Up, and the result was a treasure trove of delectable imagery.
• This Leads To posts episode 100. I found it through the Creative Synthesis Collaborative.
• G-econ Maps on Flickr provide a different perspective on everything that lives and falls on this spinning rock.
• Jessica Helfand waxes poetic about whether designers should be drinking more from the Holy Grail of science, and as usual, everyone and their brother writes a comment in reply.

posted by J.  # 7:02 PM 0 Comments

I have been doing a little research on companies with innovative business models, and in many cases,there is enough thought leadership to choke a horse. I was, however, refreshed and surprised when I found the following list (Ten things Google has found to be true) on Google's web site. Google is clearly an innovative and dynamic company, just look at the articles and reports, but instead of beating the thought leadership drum loudly, they have selected a quieter approach. After spending a morning up to my eyeballs in research reports, I can certainly appreciate their restraint.

1. Focus on the user and all else will follow.
2. It's best to do one thing really, really well.
3. Fast is better than slow.
4. Democracy on the web works.
5. You don't need to be at your desk to need an answer.
6. You can make money without doing evil.
7. There's always more information out there.
8. The need for information crosses all borders.
9. You can be serious without a suit.
10. Great just isn't good enough.

posted by J.  # 3:03 PM 0 Comments

I just returned from the AIGA Next Conference in Denver, CO. The conference was enlightening. I attended a few sessions that I'll blog about during the next few days. In particular, I liked the session during which Dana Arnett, Patrick Cox and Min Wang discussed the Olympic design process. Some surprising ideas were discussed during the session. All-in-all, it was a good experience. You need to prepare for the conference before you go, one of my shortfalls. I still attended some interesting sessions, saw some interesting antics and, generally, had a good time. More to come.

posted by J.  # 8:00 AM 1 Comments