Design Thinking

As designers, we need realize that we are not creative gods in control of every aspect of our work. When using images to steer the minds of viewers, we must take the responsibility for the mental ride and be willing to admit when things go wrong. Humans are fickle, and misinterpretation will always be at your heels.

Nevertheless, as designers we attempt to create connotations by placing images in certain contexts, but ultimately, connotations are formed from the viewer?s personal philosophy and experience. For example, imagine an American artist who paints a magnificent image of the Statue of Liberty. In the United States, this image may conjure feelings of pride and patriotism. Place this painting in an Iranian mosque, and the result would be explosive (Ha). My point is that the connotation that an image manifests is greatly influenced by the personal bias of the viewer. In fact, it is impossible for individuals not to create a connotation. Whenever you see any image you automatically associate it with something. That is the only way you can even know you?re looking at an image. When I see an image of a jungle, I associate it to other jungles and I connect those jungles to trees, and those trees to, leaves, textures, and colors and so on (if that makes any sense at all). If I happened to have been bitten by some flesh eating insect while in a jungle, this experience is just subsumed into my connotation of a jungle. This is not to say that images cannot convey objective information. Take the former example of the painting. Objectively speaking, we can conclude that it is indeed an image of the Statue of Liberty. Whether this creates feelings of pride or hate, shifts us into the realm of what the image connotes.

I propose that image creators are responsible for connotations, if first, the image is intended to convey a connotation, and second, if it is in its original context. Bell Canada?s recent misstep is an excellent illustration of intended connotations gone awry. By running their ad campaign, Bell Canada was attempting to send a specific connotation that ?our product is good?. By this action, they moved from ?this is my image, view it how you will? to ?this is an image that should make you want to buy my product?. The reason Bell Canada should be held accountable for viewers negative connotations is the fact that they were specifically attempting to send a connotation to viewers. If I?m playing charades and I want to send the idea that I?m skiing and all ten of my team mates think I?m playing roulette, there is a definite problem with my message sending and not their interpretation skills. As a result, my team mates are justified in making fun of me.

Second, I believe image creators (and users as with Bell Canada) are responsible for connotations if the image is in the original context. Take the Statue of Liberty painting. If the artist originally placed the image in a collection of patriotic imagery, then he is responsible for the patriotic idea it contains. However, an anti-American Iranian radical who intended the image to convey sentiments of hate against American would not be responsible for the patriotic feelings it would connote if he placed in a patriotic painting gallery.

This is all good and well, but how does this influence our discussion of image ownership? Well, I don?t really know, so let?s just move on.

When discussing image ownership I think a distinction must be made between the inherent image, and the image of the image. Imagine looking at a flower; we see is the inherent image. When looking at a photograph, we see the image of the image. This raises a question; do image creators actually own the image or the ability to capture the image of the image? Just because I capture the essence of something, do I own it? I think the answer is no. It is absurd to say that if I take a picture of flower, I own the inherent image of the flower. No you don?t, you just stole if from the flower.* Sure, you own the ability to capture the flowers inherent image, but the actual image is not what?s on the paper, it is contained in the flower.

This idea however, does not apply to paintings, drawings or any other means of image creation. When painting or drawing, not only do you own the ability to capture the image of the image, but you own the ability to interpret the imagery. By painting and drawing you?re in the constant process of deciding how best to represent the image on your paper or canvas. By working with line weights, color, and shading you interpret what is already there and therefore add a level of ownership to your product.

At the top of this ownership scale is the image which is created straight from your head. While this activity does pool from a reference of images stored in your mind, you?re taking the essence of these and boiling them down to create your own essence. In this process you are synthesizing all the external sources to produce something from inside yourself and this is what you truly own.

To sum all this up, image ownership comes in three levels. The ability to capture, the ability to capture and interpret, and finally, the ability to capture interpret and synthesize. (That sounds so philosophical.) So, the next time you draw a warrior dragon princess, you can know she is truly yours.

<font size="0.8">*I?m not trying to say photographers are thieves. I like photographers very much. I like to take pictures too. I do indeed.</font size>

Posted by Sam Cox on February 13, 2008 at 10:52 PM EST #

Today?s youth thrives on reusing and reworking previous works of art, whether it is remixing music or using copyrighted material in videos or advertisements or whatever else it may be. I think there is a lot of creativity in the idea of taking something out of context, reworking it or using it in a different way and creating new meaning. It creates a new level or a new depth by referencing other pieces which in turn are connected with movements, cultures, and time eras. The added meaning can become very powerful. I agree with Larry Lessig when he said that this concept of mixing with technology is ?a literacy for this generation. This is how our kids speak.? He went on to say that we ?can?t kill the instinct technology creates, only illegalize it. We can?t stop them from using it, only force it underground and we can?t make them be passive, only make them into ?pirates??.
Therefore the idea of not being allowed to use anything that is copyrighted, and according to law as soon as you are create something, you have a copyright on it, becomes somewhat ridiculous in today?s society with the technology that is available. The design world as a community needs to be able to share their ideas and traditional copyright laws often suffocate this essential need. While I believe that artists have a right to their work and to an extent should have control over how it is used; for an artist to not be willing to share their work at all is a hindrance to the idea of community. On the other hand, with no control of who can use your work (no copyrights) I think that the pride that an artist can take in their own work and accomplishments is stripped away. Moreover copyrights are in place then to protect the integrity of the artwork and to insure that people are not incorrectly claiming works as their own. Therefore, as Larry Lessig said, a balance needs to be established. Creative Commons has created just that. Creative Commons creates a middle ground in which artists can copyright certain uses so that instead of all rights reserved, it becomes certain rights reserved. An artist can choose how free they want to make their work. This seems to me to be a brilliant compromise of two extremes.
I think it is important to be very careful not to claim any idea, image or work that is not your own as your own. That said, using someone else?s work in your own work is not a problem as long as that artist is okay with your use of their work (easily done through Creative Commons). I would think that most artists would have no problem with amateur use of their work; it is when their work is used in commercial uses in which others are making a profit off of their work that it becomes a problem and I would agree that such a situation would not be fair to the artist. The easiest way to know if it is okay to use someone else?s work would be through something such as Creative Commons. Such efforts should be supported by artists. It truly becomes middle ground: artists can choose to what extent they want their work protected and users know what and how much they can use, while being able to legally collaborate on the work of others.
To comment briefly on who is responsible for the appropriations or mixes: I think that once a piece has been reworked then that person who has reworked it becomes the owner of that particular reworking, but must not claim to be the author of what was reworked only the finished reworked piece with reference to whose works were used. It is not the original artist who must be responsible for the meanings of the appropriations, but whoever made the appropriations. As in the Bell Canada example, it was completely the company?s fault for failing to be more thorough in checking their designs and not recognizing the offense their ad created. If you are going to use other people?s work, it becomes your responsibility to know how to use it appropriately and to understand any connotations that the work holds.
In summary, neither extremes, no copyright or all rights reserved, is workable in today?s society with today?s technology. The best solution to the copyright issue is the idea of certain rights reserved in which artist?s can choose how and when it is okay to use their work.

Posted by Heidi Adams on February 15, 2008 at 01:44 AM EST #

In a lecture, Marvin spoke about sharing ideas rather than competing and refusing to let anyone else see or expand upon your ideas. This hit home for me, because I, unconsciously, had a tendency to hoard my ideas. When I would get an assignment in studio or really anywhere, I immediately have ideas and thoughts that begin to race through my mind. Usually I would save these ideas and secretly scribble them in my sketchbook. When the teacher would come around to look at what I was starting to work on, I would be very vague about telling her my idea, even though I knew exactly what the idea was. In the short amount of time I have been at Design School, I have already realized what a mistake that is. Design, as Marvin so likes to call it, is a gregarious lifestyle, and is not meant to be kept to oneself. It is much better to share your ideas with your teacher, and other students, so you can get their feedback and see it from someone else?s perspective. Every person sees every idea differently depending on what their life experiences bring to it. So, I have sense broken this habit, and become much more open with sharing my ideas and work.
Now, by telling this personal experience, I am not justifying piracy. In my sharing my ideas with my peers, I am trusting them not to take my idea as a whole and claim it as their own. I am implying that those peers, or whoever they may be, may take the idea and recreate it to say something different. They may get inspired by one aspect of the idea and bounce off that in order to get an idea for their project, or use a different variation of an aspect of the idea. If this is the case, the person who formed the original idea should feel honored and talented, that their idea was good enough to capture the attention of another designer, and good enough to be admired and reworked.
This example has been a personal example, meaning the original designer was there while the design was being selected/admired/reworked. But this relates well to the big picture of ownership on one?s creations. In most cases of copyrights, the source at question was manipulated to celebrate how well designed it was. For example, I see the Swatch advertisement in ?It Takes a Nation of Lawyers to Hold Us Back,? as made with respect and admiration for Herbert Matter, not as simply a stolen idea. Sampling and reusing others ideas of the past or even the present is a great tool for creative persons. If eventually every image created is copyrighted, would a collage even be possible? I feel that reusing and reworking others ideas is essential to the work of designers, and the trust is in the sampler.
Now, if the sampler takes the images and puts them in a different context such as the Bell Canada fiasco, it is the sole responsibility of the sampler if a new offensive or otherwise displeasing effect occurs because of this different environment. The original artist had nothing to do with this choice. On the other hand, if the image were reworked and had a pleasing effect and gained popularity as a central image, the original artist should be given some credit.

Posted by Christine Fleming on February 15, 2008 at 12:37 PM EST #

Creativity comes from within the imagination. The imagination holds countless amounts of imformation and ideas. The information comes from the things in daily life that surround you. For example, in my daily life I listen to music. That music is stored up in my imagination as information because it is so familiar to me. Also, photography or artwork are all considered information in the imagination. This information is used as a creative untensil in the creation of ideas. It is the material for any ideas for newer a different versions of it that should come to mind. Sitting in class an image could trigger a music strip stored as information in the mind. These peices of information formualte into ideas in the creative mind. The ideas then become creative pieces of newer and refreshing work. What I am trying to say is that in the designer's imagination there is information that we pull from in order to design and design well. If this information were to be restricted, many ideas could never be formulated and voices could be silenced. Design is a way to communicate with the world. Is that not a main goal of a designer, to communicate, inspire, educate, and share to make the world a better place? Design circles around communication, "what is this design supposed to communicate to the people" so on an so forth. Communication between the people could be so much greater without the restrictions and with a more free range to pull ideas from. So where do you draw the line?

I think creative commons has found a solution that bridges the gap between the restriction and pull of information. It is a great thing that they are doing in allowing the copyrights to have limited restritablility. If more and more artists, inventors, designers, and musicians used this, creativity found in the imagination could actually shine through in a creative work. Sometimes because of those restrictions creativity found in the imagination can never be molded into a tangeble object. That is why Creative Commons has come up with such an idea.

To live in a more peaceful and more settled world, people must understand that communication and collaboration are key factors in that success. Instead of bottling their ideas away forever by banning it to other creative minds silences and paralyzes the idea at hand. The ideas that the modern world comes up with must be based off of some previous information, so why ban it? Why as a designer or a musician would you ban your creative work because of arrogance and selfishness? Why would you want to only keep the credit to youself and only yourself, when you idea could be sent down over and over to communicate even better than you could. I believe that if you are true to your idea as a designer that you would enable it to live on and communicate as you had once hoped it would for your own generation.

Posted by Elizabeth Corgan on February 15, 2008 at 02:15 PM EST #

In an era of remixed images and sampled graphics, ownership becomes sticky and blurry. I believe that artists and designers own the images they create. Whether you have created an original painting or a mash of images on a poster, you are the creator of that piece and are therefore the owner. In the same light, as the owner of the piece you are also responsible for the connotations your piece provokes. Designers must be aware of the social settings in which they publish their work. If you create a piece and are willing to call it yours, then you must also be willing to accept responsibility for the reactions you provoke.
We all want to take credit for the work we produce, so it is understandable when an artist begin to put in strict copyright laws. However, copyright laws are so stringent that it is harder for designers to reuse images for their work. While the original artist should receive appropriations for their work, it should all be within reason. It is true that the original artist created their work and should receive profits for letting another designer use their piece. However, if the ?re-designer? is using this image they are using it to create their own message. The ?re-designer? should receive most if not almost all of the credit for the piece. They were the one who took the painting out of its original context and used it for their new message, not the original artist. Copyright laws need to be more flexible, so that as Marvin said, designers can stand on each other?s shoulders instead of hoarding their ideas.
When I talk about ownership, I mean it in very abstract terms. This does not include the copyright laws or any legal agreements it is only the intangible concept. When you get into copyright laws and legal agreements of ownership, this is where things get messy. In the example of the Smithsonian and Showtime agreement, it seems as though Showtime has basically bought the rights to all of the Smithsonian?s archives. While this should not be allowed, the Smithsonian did agree to this ?deal? so they cannot blame Showtime for reaping the benefits of their archives. However, because Showtime has the rights to approve other artists use to the Smithsonian archives is shameful. This is a prime example of hoarding ideas. One way these kinds of stringent rights can slowly be removed is with Creative Commons where works can be given ?some rights reserved?. With less harsh restrictions placed upon ownership, artist?s creations are more capable of being used by others without the original creators losing ownership over their pieces.
A responsibility that coincides with ownership is the artist?s message. Granted, connotations are solely subjective, nevertheless as the owner of your work you are also the owner of the message you are trying to convey. While some connotations may be harder to predict, some are widely shared by the general public. In the example of the Bell phone company, they should have known that the button was in the advertisement and the connotations that would be provoked by its statement. If you are going to publish an advertisement for the public to see then you must take complete responsibility for its message. It was not an obscure connotation for people to read the button ?Belson was a gas? and immediately think of the Holocaust. This was a commonly held connotation, and unless the purpose of the advertisement was to associate their phone with Holocaust puns, then they were quite irresponsible when designing their advertisement.
In the end, it all boils down to the point that as designers we are the owners of our work and are responsible for the messages we convey. However, to stem future creativity, we should not be afraid to let our designs flow through the hands of other designers who can create greater and stronger ideas.

Posted by Ellen Duda on February 15, 2008 at 02:41 PM EST #

It isn't just today's youth that thrives on redefining and recreating what has come before - doing so is a major essence of design - to take what humanity has created before, and to try a new direction, to put a new spin on it, to take the old in a new direction.

It is important that the original creator have the right to ownership of the original (and so is reponsible for the message of the original), and have the right to be recognized as the creator of the original. Just as it isn't right to simply take another creator's work and claim it as it your own, it doesn't cut it to "cheat" - to take someone else's work and alter it -just- enough to get past the point of being a "wholesale re-distributor". This isn't using someone else's image as a part of a new idea of your own; it's comparable to, instead of writing an essay based on research from scholarly journals, to take a journal, re-word it in a few places, and say it's your own article "based on" the one you've read.

Lessig, from the TED video, had an excellent point about copyright law. With the technologies we have available today, it is time for copyright law to be rewritten, and the new law should bewritten so as to make all derivative works "fair use" that are based around a new idea - a new spin, a new direction, or a new goal, or even just a recombination - lawful and acceptable.

With this, of course, the recombiner gains responsibility as well. The message of the recombination, as well as any cultural ideas or stereotypes that result from it, fall on the shoulders of the remixer - for example, Bell Canada's designers should be held accountable for the ads, as they are responsible for the creation of the message, even if something did slip in unnoticed.

Posted by Jen Edwards on February 15, 2008 at 02:53 PM EST #