After browsing through some of my classmates work, I decided to review Dylan Comb's, Nichole Doherty's, Yupeng's, Srivattsan Ramesh's, and Christopher's blog.
Dylan has a very similar view on design as I do, "Anything that has been planned by a person or group of people in order to create something that does not yet exist whether it is an artist painting, a seamstress making clothes, or an engineer created a new invention or way to do something. As a verb, my definition for design would be relatively the same except including "to plan out or create something" instead of "Anything....something"." I like the way he thought out his design definition. He went ahead and pulled sources to combine them all into one, which I think is good. However, I disagree with the fact that you don't see technological disobedience anywhere in the US or around where you live. Sometimes you just have to look at something close enough to realize it isn't what you think it is. Great use of outside websites to express your ideas throughout your work. Extra XP should be awarded for all the great blogging.
http://psudrc.blogspot.com/2015_02_01_archive.html
Nichole's definition of design wasn't as straight to the point but more based off of who the designer is. She says how design can differ depending on people, material, mindset, or anything like that for that matter. I can completely relate to that and that is a very unique way of putting it. Also, very good description of technological disobedience and different objects pulled from the video clip shown in class. However, I believe that your own experience's with technological disobedience isn't what you talked about. Just using an object for something other than it's purpose I don't see as being technological disobedience. What about something you've seen where you were like "what the heck is that?" Having no clue what something is just because it's made out of so many different things, but being used for a purpose you have seen before.
http://psudrc.blogspot.com/2015_02_01_archive.html
Yupeng doesn't really give a definition of design but merely says how design isn't creating, but creating is a part of design. Also, he says once again that he hasn't seen technological disobedience. I can't agree with that. The world is so big and even here at Penn State we have people using this term to the fullest. Even college students do this themselves! Look around, just closer, and maybe you will start to see it more often.
http://iamliguangming.blogspot.com/
Srivattsan's definition of design is the effort and representation of an idea. Even though very short, I can agree with this. Design to me is the idea's and action behind a product. Therefore, our way of thinking of design is quite similar. He goes on to say how he created objects of scrap materials and so forth which I applaud because I do the same thing ever day I don't have school or work responsibilities. Great to hear that someone else has some sort of the same interests as I do. Extra XP awarded for hands on work, also I know he goes out of his way to do other events or work opportunities.
http://vatsan-edsgn015s.blogspot.com/
Christopher says that design is a creation that is influenced by something or someone in a specific way. I would argue to say that I don't believe design is a creation but more of the idea's behind a creation. However, I do agree with the fact that someone or something has an impact on design. Unfortunately, Chris gives no personal views of technological disobedience and therefore all I can say Is take a look at the world around you. You can be surprised by what you see.
http://cjt5273.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment