Reflection Design for Social Interaction in Public Spaces

DB218 Design for Social Interaction in Public Spaces Manon Barendse s119828 Two week Module Q4 Taiqang - China

Within this module, I have designed an interactive installation for in public space with ‘nature’ as theme.

Within an international team of Dutch and Chinese students, we have gone through a design process using the Drama - Story - Production Interaction method.

My team has build a concept on the contradicting drama ‘Nature is nobody - Nature deserves respect’, in which we liked to express distance and closeness.

This document will firstly include a reflection on primarly the process and secondly some visuals about the installation.

0. General expectation.

I expected this module to be a challenge, working within a group of people who are all non-Dutch and non-Designers. An extra challenging aspect was that it was all going to happen in China, somewhere far from home. And it is almost common knowledge: the more stressful the situation, the more you rely on the calming effect of being home.

Though, I am always in for a trip and I was very curious how everything would affect my design practice and behavior in the group. What kind of role would I naturally take in within the group and what is my extra value? I was looking forward to discover it all.

Within this reflection I will focus on three main subjects: 1. The use of the Drama-Story-Production-Interaction method.

2. The teamwork and communication – dynamics./ design approach 3 Designing an (art) installation.

1. The use of the Drama-Story-Production-Interaction method.

The Drama-Story-Production-Interaction method partly met my expectations: it has helped my team to analyze and structure feelings & emotions (drama), what resulted in a fixed foundation for the rest of the process. The drama and story stage made sure that there is a certain common understanding on the most fundamental level.

Though, the drama was not one big gut-feeling we all had; it was almost rationally created by ideation sessions around the question “What is nature? “. In combination with the difficulties to discuss in depth (language barrier), I had the feeling that we could not come up with a drama where we were all 100% committed to and understood; one that was very close to our hearts.

This missing commitment to and understanding of the drama was especially visible in the dissimilar priorities in the process we as individual team members had in the further stages of the process. In other words, we did not completely felt the same needs resulted out of the drama/story.

For example, while I thought we still had to research the expression of respect a bit better, some of my team members were already making decisions about which resistor we needed for a piece of electronics.

This could perhaps be solved by adding another stage to the Drama-Story-ProductionInteraction method in which the personal relation to the drama, as well as the personal expression of the drama will be revealed in a physical (non-words) manner. I feel that the

Reflection

Within my master, I want to create my own recipe for design practice - one that fits me as a glove. I believe I can only do this by using methods/practices created by others and take with me what I think is very valuable. I was looking forward to go through the Drama-Story-Production-Interaction method, because a big part is how to communicate ‘feeling’ within the design practice and how to express emotions into a design. I often start my design process with a gut-feeling and I hoped that this method could give me handles how to ‘rationalize’ it and make it understandable for others.

DB218 Design for Social Interaction in Public Spaces

gap between story and production now provided too much freedom of interpretation what the production should be like. Story does not naturally flow into production, although it should already give away the experience.

I think that production and interaction should be convertible, because that allows doing iterations. My group tended to follow the method very strictly and partly therefore we ended up in a situation in which we had only finished the production the day of the exhibition. Hence, this was the first moment that all the parts of our whole installation came together, what gave us just an hour of interaction iterations.

I think that the strongest part of this method is the addition of structure to feeling. This makes it a lot easier to translate into design and to communicate it to others. Though, a drama is not a good drama when it is not felt by the whole team. That’s why I think the method has a higher chance of success when I apply it on my individual projects.

2. The teamwork and communication - dynamics/design approach Before I started this module, I decided to emphasize on the team dynamics and not on the result. I have not decided to participate in this Module to make a perfect installation; I see the creation of the installation more as a tool that helps me to better understand my own role and value within an (international) team. Why? Because we are living in a globalizing world and it is very likely that I will have to work together with people from other cultures again. I hope this module gives me the knowledge what the necessities are to have an ‘oiled’ international team (process).

I think that we as TU/e students are educated as critical links (schakels) – people who have a wide understanding of all aspects of the design process. Thereby, we develop a vision and identity and therefore we learn to trust in our design intuition. Having to reflect on both process and product, we are invited to think and to see connections.

I think that this will push us quite naturally in the role of process manager and to have a large say in the conceptual stage of the design process. Especially because the Chinese seem to be more specialized in a practical skill.

The module has certainly provided some insights about my role as designer. In the beginning of the Module I generally had the role as manager, because in comparison to my team members, I understood the design process quite well. This meant for me personally that I was the person who knew how to generate ideas from scratch, how to pull input out of all the team members and balance it into a concept.

I have noticed that my extra value is especially within the conceptual side of the process.

I know where to give the right ‘push’ and I am good in finding original contexts and directions.

I often made low-fi infographic summaries of the feedback we got the evening before, in order to make a kick-start in the morning. A golden catch to make sure that everybody understood the feedback of the teachers and to have all the noses in the same direction before we started the fresh day.

However, I quickly discovered that I had to be careful with dropping ideas on the table or initiating an model or small test. For me everything I presented to my group was something to discuss, delete or build on – nothing permanent. For my Chinese team members, it often felt like I really wanted it. The addition of sentences as “… but it is just a suggestion” helped a lot to get this intercultural confusion out of the way.

Though, the further in the process, the more I felt uncomfortable in the manager position, merely because we have never declared as a team that I was the manager. Hence I felt I dictated actions while I did not have the power and the support to do so. This was quite demanding, because nobody else felt the need to take in the manager role, but they neither allowed me to do it.

In the future, the first thing I will do in the same kind of situation is to decide with the whole team that there is one manager that takes care of the structure of and de decisions within the process. I think this is a good thing for overcoming cultural differences in working attitude as well. For example, I always felt guilty for leaving the classroom earlier than my Chinese group members, But in fact, they have a totally different working pace : they worked slow and long, while I like to work fast and shorter.

More ‘agreed’ structure would have helped us to work together more pleasant and efficient.

The second thing is to have a meeting about all the deliverables we have and check who is able to do what - this creates a situation that everyone can already think about their next activity while for example receiving feedback.

On the last day, Yu Zhang told me that she had felt like I had given up the last two days of the workshop, while I looked very tough all the other days. That comment hit me quite hard, partly because I was very tired, but more because I thought this was the wrong way to describe my attitude of the last two days of the workshop.

Like I have mentioned, I wanted to focus on the team dynamics, more than on the end result/installation. In order to maintain the peace within the team and to have a result, I stopped fighting certain decisions (which I did not agree with from the beginning, but which the rest of the team really wanted to) and make the best of it. For example, I have tried to convince my team from the beginning of the conceptualization to work with projection instead of LED’s, but nothing could get LED’s out of their head.

These decisions automatically caused that I did not fully backed our concept and I had hard times to pretend like I did. In the end some of these decisions turned out to be very poor, but at least they were made by the majority of the team.

I am perfectly aware that I have sacrificed the quality of the end result here, especially the ‘magic’ of the interaction. But I wonder if we would have anything when I pushed my thoughts through, what would have reduced the motivation of the team.

Reflection

Sacrificing results for better team dynamics?

3. Designing an (art) installation.

DB218 Design for Social Interaction in Public Spaces

What I like about installations is that quite simple interaction can give a lot of effect.

I have heard somebody saying about art: “It should be so personal that it is original, but also so generic that it is understandable” – I was looking forward to experience to learn how to make this happen.

We have discussed in the feedback meeting that the method we have used is very selfcentered as being a method that does not begin with the input/need of the user, but out of a feeling from ourselves.

Though, within the method (and the module), we have validated our assumptions/emotions with some elements out of the story (as social and cultural background) that are related to a bigger group of people than just ourselves and I have initiated to hold interviews to have some user input & inspiration. My design practice is most of the time very much within the context and I can’t see an interactive installation apart from its users. The interview was one of the most invigorating activities for my team members and I see that as very valuable. I think that I can conclude that I am a designer and not an artist, refusing to have no user-input at all.

I think designing (products/systems) is always user-centered ánd self-centered and that it is all about the balance. In which context I start my design process, which users and what need I want to address, where my gut-feeling arises; this all starts more or less with me and they define my identity as designer. And after, the user will have more influence within the process. However, this Module has pinpointed that when I want to express this feeling (and therefore my identity) in my end product, I need to take the time and do all of the steps.

Not just shifting from a very personal ‘drama’ to a user-centered product, but carefully consider if and how every detail of the design expresses parts of the drama and my identity.

Designing art (installations) have influenced my identity as designer as such that I would like to have a bigger emphasis on affordances and multiple using modes in my concepts.

Story Drama = Character = Plot = Installation =

Nature is nobody - Nature inherently deserves respect - How to respect something that does not belong to anything/body?

People in the nature When you show respect to nature with your body, you will feel respect with mind Evokes the (respectfull) conversation between nature and human

Respect is very personal and subjective. Respect seems to be like a boomerang in the sense that you must send it out before it will come back to you.

Respect is also an expression of accepting a certain trait or set of traits demonstrated by that person. The qualities or traits that we appreciate, we tend to respect those who own them. So, respecting a person or not comes naturally.

It becomes more difficult when we translate this understanding of respect to nature. How to respect qualitities that are ‘from’ nobody? We belong to nature, but nature does not belong to us.

The environmental wisdom worldview holds that we must respect all life forms not as a means to human ends, but because they're inherently deserving of respect, but how to start this conversation?

Confucius believed there was a natural harmony between the body and mind and therefore, whatever actions were expressed through the body would be transferred over to the mind. What one does to oneself has an impact on the mind.

Building on this theory, we believe that our installation can evoke a respectful conversation between human and nature by triggering embodied actions that transfer a feeling to the mind.

Story This was the drama/story we ended week 1 with and where we build our installation on.

Body & Mind Harmony Respect between people

Respect

Like a boomerang

Translation to human - nature

Nature

Final Installation The box had to attract you with creating a increasingly beautiful atmosphere when you come closer.

But! when the user comes in the personal space of the box, it would make sure you would take some distance.

Final Installation The leafs on the ground had to force people to approach our box respectfully: slow and without making too much ‘cracking’ sounds. ... And the leafs had an amazing smell!