NOTES FROM MARCH 9 MEETING

Reb: So, this is our proposal for how to bring together some of our ideas so far. What we want to do is let go of ideas we already have about how to use a gallery space. Don’t take the space for granted, but see all of it as an opportunity for site-specific showing of work. It’s basically unlikely you’ll find one place where all of your work will live together, because it is ruthlessly about finding the perfect sites and forms for our projects. Whether that happens in clusters or crevices, or a huge diffusion, or in events – that is up to each designer. We want all the work to be engaging for the viewer. Curating and installation get mapped onto each other…

The idea is broken into phases.

Installation is very different than last year. We have to do it all ourselves in a short amount of time before critiques, so it’s going to be hairy.

Phase 1 Go explore the galley space and look for places to display your projects. Find places that map well onto particular project. Shows gallery map with photographs of potential spaces This show parts, details, to think about before you go and explore the space. We want people to record their choices onto the map. So we can see how work is accruing and distributed across the gallery. The photographs are a sampling of locations, they are only a starting point – hopefully people will think of things we haven’t.

Record your sites, and sites that might be useful to other people. It’s ok for more than one person to pick the same space. That could result in collaboration and/or negotiation. Don’t be afraid to use parts of the gallery that are hard to see. It could fuel ideas of mapping ect.

Phase 2 Sketch. This idea is not about turning the gallery upside down just to be provocative. But really using the work to curate the space. Think about resources. Think about time based work.

Phase 3 Critique. Find overlap. Weed out weak ideas. Revise.

Phase 4 Group will again take over responsibility.

Phase 5 Installation

Rob: How does money figure into the equation?

Dan: Maybe we need to have a process of deciding who gets what money.

Reb: Our original thought was the more cost for an idea, the more people have to be involved.

Rob: I am fine in saying in the first round that we shouldn’t expect to have funding.

Dan: I would encourage you to be as cheap as possible.

Reb: When you sketch list resources that the work will require

Dan: What are people’s questions and concerns?

Romy: Can we also propose projects for a particular space rather than retrofitting work for the space?

Eric A: Going through the space gave me ideas to invent new projects and re-invent old space. Also, looking at vending machines made me think that spaces outside the gallery could be used for something, there are a lot of opportunities.

Rob: What are the terms of engagement? What happens when people start to move in on space that we want?

Reb and Seb: Terms for negotiation.

Eric A: There is a level playing field for now.

Dan: Maybe if you are getting really committed to a space then you should announce it. You could also use the map.

Eric A: That’s probably going to come up, and we are just going have to go through it.

Dan: Just remember it’s a time based process.

Reb: So if everyone wants to go under the stairs, then we have a title of the show: People under the stairs.

Dan: What are other concerns?

Brad: One concern I had is thinking about a list of projects I want to show, and it felt unnatural to find and determine the best space for it. And I guess that will be worked out through sketching. For example, I was thinking that I could install Paul’s desktop poster by hanging a monitor on the wall.

Dan: The sketch phase is really important to the success of the idea. For me, the idea is valid, but it should be about putting this in a really intentional place. If it’s about putting on the wall, I’m not sure that this is the particular wall.

Sam: I hope some ideas emerge where there is a collective intent because some projects will work off each other.

Dan: I think this should be heightened, collaboration, other projects…

Rob: Some work can depend specifically on other work in the space. That could be the impetus for placing it.

Dan: So if you need that, you all know each others work…

Eric A: We hope with the map, that we could document it’s progress, as you are adding things, you can take a picture so that we can get that additive build up of the pictures. We have a camerachecked out till May.

Jim: We really want people to use it, take photographs.

Dan: Think it’s a really fun sketch. Think it’s something you can use.

Jim: We keep thinking about how if this movie evolves, we can show this in the gallery somewhere

Dan: I think it will probably work as a signal of the idea, but unsure as a documentation, because some things are so 3-D they can only be evoked.

Rob: Did we come up with certain things that can be more temporal in the space?

Reb: Well sketch them.

Seb: We can start to use different colors to differentiate work vs. activities.

Dan: I think it’s a good thing to think about and you guys have such great time based work.

Eric A: So that you are building some sort of schedule for the show?

Reb: Program of events.

Rob: So if you want the lights to go off in the gallery every hour…

Seb: You have to convince people, but it’s do-able.

Reb: You’re right, that’s a very good point.

Eric A: So if the lights go off, is there any indication? Is there any explanation? If something is going to happen, even if there is like a workshop, is there going to be signage? Is there a way to get that information out?

Sam: Is there a Plan B?

Dan: I assumed you guys had dropped it.

Brad: I started not being as interested in it. The process idea where each room was an iteration of every project. Finished, sketching and iterations. I think that could be worked in.

Dan: To me they are essentially opposite ideas, so I wanted them to be both on the table. This idea was completely divorced from the specifics of the room. A more totalitarian approach.

Eric A: For me I’ve always pictured it being able to exist within this other idea. I was never convinced it could hold up an entire show. But I liked that it was taking advantage of three spaces.

Seb: But that could work over any three spaces.

Eric A: We could create three spaces within our space that could work too.

Dan: What I want to say generally about the brief – there is a way of reading it where it is completely general. So where does that leave you? So it kinds says that you need to show your work in the gallery, so I think you need to exaggerate those ideas and really put pressure on that. That’s why the critique phase is really important

.... I miss much of the conversation

Eric A: I am starting to feel that the conversation…

Dan: It’s not just academic.

Rob: But I also think it is successful that you put your stuff up on the wall and that can be justified.

Romy: How does the book come into it?

Reb: I have an idea of a library, and that…

Dan: I was just saying that markets grow up next to each other. That could happen in Phase 1 – where shared resources could cause people to coalesce.

Dan: I would be cautious about the bookshelf because that could work anywhere.

Sam: Yeah, but how well do we know this space? Is this space really that special? I mean, why don’t we find out the temperature then, or the specific measurements…

Dan: I think it is much more than a white box. It could be measured, but it could be slowly carefully experienced by you.

Eric A: I think that walking through taking pictures was a good way to explore the space, helped you see the angles, how it could be reproduced. It goes back the idea of placing things just for taking pictures

Dan: That is a good way to think about installation, how do you ram the viewer into that space?

Rob: It also seems that the photographs that were taken are macro macro.

Dan: We can have a much greater range of scale.

Seb: What about work that is interesting because it can move, that it can work in many spaces – denial of fit. There should be work that should resist that, something to think about.

Dan: It’s a rejection of the brief.

Seb: It’s not only a rejection – it’s about thinking about the work, not just about the space. Let’s make sure the gallery serves the work and not the other way around, that it’s still about the work.

Dan: Well, it seems to be about both. I think the brief shows…

Seb: We should think about what does the work lose by submitting to the space?

Reb: That can happen in any show.

Eric N: I’ve been thinking from the start of using leftover spaces and in-between spaces. I’m drawn to it for the very reason there is a trade-off. I like the idea of showing the work and speaking about it’s relationship to the space even if it is manufactured. I am worried that everything I have done has never really been made to think about a space. How does my work practically relate to any of the space?

Reb: Relating to a space – you can come through that from many angles. Like Jim is thinking about her thesis. While Brad is thinking about the work itself.

Rob: Or the viewer.

Eric N: Theoretically, it’s fabulous. Practically, I’m not sure. Like Seb said, graphic design on the computer is it’s own self-enclosed world.

Rob: Conversations are a good bottom-up approach – sketching will be of help.

Dan: You can think about the user.

Eric N: I am almost more excited about using the space to control play with the viewer.

We end on a positive note.

Dan: I am sure your first proposals will not be good. You need to make sure you have plenty of time. We’ll meet in small groups till April 2. Then we’ll have a group crit.

NOTES FROM FEB 26 MEETING

Paul is present, Dan is away.

Andrew: Reb and I were eating dinner and talking about Exhibition. We came up with this new idea – reads notes – long story short; wouldn’t it be great if we pick spaces in the gallery where we show work already made, and then, as a starting point, each of us have to collaborate with the two spaces next to our own: communication across the divide.

Paul: How do you end up next to each other?

Andrew: The important part is allowing collaboration.

Paul: On top of the showing of work?

Reb: The only stipulation is that introducing a new medium would mean you have to collaborate with someone else.

Andrew: We were talking about how special it is – how our class gets along.

Eric A: I could start right now. Maybe people have certain things they want to do, and then put the idea on the table as an open invitation. For example, I am thinking about a project with tape and green screens. Working off the idea that anyone could come into a room and choose to interact and record that a new video on top of an existing video. That’s just one idea that I’m excited about.

Reb and Jim: We were thinking of re-purposing certain spaces within the gallery with our work. Using corners and angles where there might be less traffic. Like the stairs could show two different pieces of work if you are walking up vs. down. Same with the railings – we could use them to reassemble stop-motion pieces. We could use the ceiling. We could use the grooves at the bottom of the stairs. We could use the walls as disjointed surfaces.

Displaying the work to use unoccupied spaces – as a point of flows, since they are not pausing points.

Paul: It might have more impact if it is seen as a total idea. It is like an inversion of last year since everything is so aggressively present. This idea is more considered if you think about what you are seeing and how you see it.

Reb: We don’t want to just invert last years show.

Jim: I think there is a relationship between Eric’s idea and this work.

Reb: Presents Rob’s work. First show’s White Stripes video by Gondry. Now, Rob’s slides. Essentially his idea is about moving through the space, like moving through our day a moving through our studio. See our process on the wall and on top of desks. There is a random slide down a set of stairs. There is some confusion. _Reb presents a second Rob slide show. _

Seb: Looks like the Matrix.

Reb: Show Rob’s second video. Things are all skewed.

Jim: We think that the rotating cube idea is related. I think it could be really hard to execute.

Brad: I think it’s similar to the stairs idea.

Reb: Instead of the work being flat in front of you, it acknowledges your perspective.

Paul: I don’t think you can have this discussion without Rob. It’s very ambitious. You need him to talk about it.

Eric A: I think we are looking at the idea of distinct gestures. I don’t think that any of these fill up the whole space.

Paul: I think it could be a big problem. With it being overwhelming. If you look at other shows with other schools – they often are really fractured and they are mad. It’s hard to engage with anyone’s work. You gotta just avoid that. I didn’t experience last years show, only saw images. But I think that there should be something that tries to tie it all together and not too many ideas that tie it all together.

Sam: I want the space to make the work accessible. I am concerned about making the work more disjointed, making more work just for the show, and making the work even more skewed/ inaccessible.

Julie: Can we make our individual spaces move? So they become more spread out.

Reb: We have been talking about Kate’s land grab idea. All of this is about collaboration and even if there are 10×10 foot spaces, they aren’t going to be square spaces for very long.

Gaby: I feel like we are just starting from scratch each week. It’s good because we have more and more ideas. But I think we need have one foot on the ground and build from that.

Jim: I think we are building.

Gaby: I just think they are building up in a new direction.

Julie: But I think we now are having physical ideas.

Reb: I think because there is so much change.

Gaby: Yes, just at a certain point…

Eric A: I think I am still having problems grabbing onto something. I think that is because we each have individual takes on what we are drawn to. I think you say it here. I think the following proposition is risky. Trying to keep it loose and.. .

Andrew: I think it’s better if we could have one piece that everyone could…

Reb: If we could assign spaces and…

Eric N: Should we arrive at a collective plan?

Reb: I think if one appears that’s great, if one doesn’t then don’t force it.

Seb: Maybe if you come up with drawings…

Jim: i think that the collaboration idea is good. but i think that it could also look like a big mess. Still think there should be some visual clue.

Julie: I think some way of mapping the show is critical too.

Kate: Now the show seems to be about an organic growth. For example thinking about putting in tape to divide up the space, then seeing how space expands and as it grows the tape stays.

Jim: We are also relying on collaboration.

Reb: That’s the thing it is the same amount of sketching.

Gaby: I’m just worry about the installation time with the collaboration.

Jim: Because on top of that is the extra work involved in collaboration plus our books plus…

Seb: This is becoming very speculative. You guys need to come up with a set of rules.

Gaby: That is true, but it useful to hear outside perspective.

Sam: Working off the idea of found objects – introduces the idea of stencils that we own becoming a typeface for the show. And the idea of checking out as many books from Sterling library at once for the show.

Seb: Maybe there are CDs we can find, or maybe there are photocopies. Other things too.

Paul: Does this show have to include your own work?

All: Just our books.

Gaby: Think about Five Obsructions. Maybe each of us need to find restrictions. Like finding these found materials and working from that.

Sam: But Dan didn’t want that.

Reb: Invented re-use.

Seb: I think that Dan was concerned about the aesthetics of re-use, it has been played out, and it doesn’t necessarily imply what you are making. He suggested stepping back.

Sam: I have been thinking about the underutilized space outside the gallery. And also I liked Rebecca’s t-shirt factory the other night at the concert. And there is no School of Art T-shirt.

Kate: What about if there was some kind of exchange? Like everything that was in the show could be taken away?

Seb: Andrew and I have to go to a meeting. We will back.

Eric A: That represents the epitome of forced interactivity. I don’t know how the spirit of that relates to us. I could see us giving things away, but not asking for things in return.

Reb: Maybe that idea could be something that Kate works on. Everyone could do there own thing.

Jim: I really don’t want it to look like a science fair.

Bread: Don’t you think it would look like studio now?

Sam: I think studio looks like a mess.

Reb: But it was done in a short amount of time. Our exhibition will involve planning.

All: What’s the next step?

Sam: Think about how spaces could be assigned in the gallery space. Maybe they could work off existing relationships between us.

Julie: I just keep thinking about cubes. And that seems really unexciting. Maybe we could use structural elements.

Kate: The spaces could be negotiated through collaboration. Keeping a record of the original space so we can see how it evolved.

Gaby: Squares could act more like a guide.

PUBLICATION DEPARTMENT

Mike: We changed course and wrote out a guideline. We are taking on a management role. Designing a grid ect. but besides that the work will be designed by you. Book would be sequenced based on how work is submitted. A lot of this comes out of the way the website has been shaping up.

Reb: No typeface.

Jim: You will just send us a template?

Julie: What about submitting and re-submitting – taking into account the multiple drafts? There could be addendum for example.

Reb: Like track changes.

Jim: There might be a spread or a few pages of added spreads.

Reb: We don’t have a page count limit. But 32 pages might be too long if each of us do that. But most people won’t submit that many. We are just figuring it will all work itself out.

Eric A: So does this allow you to, say, include a picture that take up a whole page?

Reb: Yes.

All: So what’s the guiding principles… will headings be the same for every page? Like the title to everyone’s presentation.

Mike: We would also make a title page for everyone.

Paul: Will you plan the publication to reflect some theme of the show?

Mike: The spirit of the show. Yes.

Sam: We don’t know what that is.

Reb: We need to send the book to the printer at least three weeks before the show.

WEBSITE

Eric N: One of the questions is who can contribute? How do you differentiate who is who? How can you manage all that information? Listening to today’s discussion has given me new ideas.

Eric A: What if you could have a visitor name?

Reb: Other?

Eric A: I don’t think that people would want to add to it.

Mike: You mean other people here can submit as us?

Eric N: There is no way to tell now who is who.

Pr: When the site is first released in the press release it will not be nearly complete. Talking to Carter and Sebastian there were issues of how to secure it – maybe being on the Yale network is one way. People outside the network would not see the contribute box. You wouldn’t have to go through a login page. But if everyone could contribute, using a visual way to differentiate. I felt like it’s important to distinguish us vs. them. I am not sure how to deal with it. Especially, if it is offensive.

Reb: What are some methods of security?

Eric N: We each have a login – we are responsible for ourselves. The other is there is a design password for our group. We could still pretend to be each other. The third layer is that is open to anyone from Yale. So if you are at home, you are excluded.

Reb: Then we can’t update the site once we graduate. Is it possible to have an insecure way for anyone to contribute, but then also have a way to authorize our own submissions? Then maybe the visitors collections is only showed randomly.

Eric N: Sounds like we are talking about a group login plus an outsiders login.

Eric A: What is the system for navigating?

Eric N: As it stands its just a big scrolling list. It is easy to add on a system of classification – like scroll by names. Another is to have smaller amount of work show, with extra meta-data. But we don’t want to make it uncomfortable for people to upload with a long description.

Sam: We’ve talked about types of modules. Gift, Knowledge and Work.

Eric N: We have thought about them as a way to structure the site.

Kate: Can we resize images down to a smaller, uniform size? It cause me to spend a lot of time resizing.

Eric N: We like the idea of disparate images sizes.

Eric A: Could there be a way to show thumbnails, to browse images rather than have to scroll? I have seen the way people go through things.

Eric N: Sebastian was talking about having as little extraneous navigation as possible. Almost devoid of text and tags. That would be more organic.

Kate: Isn’t that really difficult?

Eric N: Yes. We don’t know how images relate to each other without tagging. Or dates.

Eric A: I am interested in a navigational system. Like the module system. And by people.

Eric N: Any other ideas?

Pr: Seems like no one is interested in tag idea? In wordpress, there is a list of tags that could be clicked on and more could be edited. And maybe there could be a tag module as well. Also, is it possible to upload a url rather than download to desktop and reload?

Eric N: Yes.

Kate: That are the three categories (Gift, Knowledge, Work) that we have also talked about in the show – if they overlap how can they be incorporated into each part of the exhibit – the catalog, the invitation, the show, the website?

PR

Julie: Each group should have a representative to work on the fudning application.

NEXT WEEK GOALS

Reb: Proposals for space.

Eric A: Write up collaboration ideas.

Julie: Personal Ads.

All: Could we have an open meeting?

Julie: Like office hours

Reb: Friday at 3pm.

NOTES FROM FEB 12 MEETING

Department of Physical Presence

Eric A: Basically we are still playing around with a couple variations. We decided to break apart to make sketches. Feric created a 3D rendering of the space. We are still working out ideas of efficiency with ideas about layers, duality, and experiences.

Brad: I’ve been thinking about volume and mass within the space. And also the idea of making people feel a little uncomfortable. This also plays with idea of micro-spaces. Shows Mock-up Thought it could be interesting to make a room within a room – four walls – a box. They would be very close to the entrance to the gallery. You could see the structure of the room when walking in, and you would have to traverse the outside structure before entering. The book room could let light in, but the video room maybe the lights were off – each room would have a different surprise.

Lisa: So you intend to occupy the center as well as the exterior?

Brad: Yes. Work on the walls and interior spaces.

Kate: Why?

Brad: The ideas I was talking about with mass or volume as well as encountering the space in a different way. I don’t yet know how it relates to graphic design right now. But material might play a key role.

Reb: One of the things I was thinking was Richard Serra – how what seems uncomfortable, might instead become quite wonderful. We also talked about how maybe the walls could be translucent.

Jim: In conjunction with Feric’s idea… we have been thinking about the idea of modularity. Thinking of a way to use projection in the space. Feric came up with the idea of using the ceiling as a platform. And we’ve also been thinking about scrolls coming down from the ceiling.

Gaby: I like the idea in general of projecting things. We also talked about sensors that activate and re-activate the space.

Kate: Are we capable of that?

Eric A: If it is just a question of lights, it might be possible. Another idea, a gesture of selecting the work to put on the walls would be through slides that could be shuffle, selected, and duplicated.

Reb: One thing I thought in combo of Eric A we could have a projection that was behind a screen.

Rob: In terms of PR Department we were unsure what falls in our realm. Because right now the Publications and PR seem to have some territory crossover, but not sure who would specifically deal with something like the invitation.

Kate: Not sure what the theme is to actually communicate to outsiders

Reb: For me there seems to be a few themes. Like layers of us on each other, or us in a room. For us its about us as a group.

Kate: I wonder what the hook is.

Gaby: I don’t want a theme.

Eric A: I think we already have one.

Sebastian: Maybe we are after an editorial conceit rather then a theme.

Reb: Maybe we don’t need a name.

Dan: Maybe multiple scales are working, expressing things on different layers.

Eric A: Maybe it is about shifts in scale which accompany a slightly different approach.

Reb: I made a map of the gallery. I was thinking about lighting. And projection. In the front gallery I placed the green screen, and in the next room, put interactive work. Mid-level is posters. In the basement though the projector could really come into play. And the last idea, about sensors, I really like.

Kate: Another question: I like the way that sounds, but I worry about that becoming a lot of surface.

Reb: I think that it could be become a new piece of work.

Dan: I think the waste question should be looked at it really closely in relation to scale. We need to be sure of the pros and cons, sacrificing coverage in terms of ecological.

Sebastian: One, I think we should return to the idea of the theme after every department has spoken. Two, on that vein, I was thinking the word scale has very strict visual connotations and I like that what I see is different degrees / gradients. A lot of the ideas are very architectural, are we trying to do architecture or are we trying to think how we as designers operate in an environment?

Lisa: I want to offer some objective readings of the proposals that might tease out the themes. Brad’s proposal seemed very much about duality, inside vs. outside. Something that would formally speak about being on the perimeter or inside the space. The Bill Viola retrospective had a long tunnel that was about 2.5 ft horizontally, a t-shaped and you were against a large projection of a baby face… Right now the proposal seems more architectural than about what it means. I am critical of the idea of three distinct things, rather than one tunnel that you move through the entire space. The projection idea. I wasn’t sure if it was a combination of works on the wall…?

Eric A: We envisioned one discreet wall with one work from everyone or/ and shuffle through one person’s work

Lisa: Seems like the structure is one too many. The diversity of work vs. homogenizing everyone’s work. A common framework vs. individuality. I think that just doing a projection is too easy, but the idea of projecting onto customized surfaces is something to explore.

Dan: You guys haven’t yet considered how to architect space between each other’s work.

Kate: One idea I had was what if we installed the show as a land grab, zones of the gallery were opened up at different times.

Dan: You haven’t entertained the idea of showing everyone’s work individually.

...

Gaby: I think that’s important issue. [How to do materials, how to do more with less.] I think it would be nice to know a budget, before picking material.

Kate: I like what you said about scaling back. That reminded me of the sketch of the tape corners. Last year working on a project we envisioned something and had to pare back.

Dan: How to be graphic and structural within the space is a problem.

Rob: I do think there is an architectural aspect. Do we want the work to respond to the space vs. work respond to the person?

Dan: It seems like the sketches today were too safe. They all echo the existing structure of the space. Very logical and practical decisions. Rather than testing tension and unpredictability. You don’t have to go that far, but you can play with a certain sense of antagonism.

Lisa: I think there has to be something singular about the show. There’s also something that it is a narrative that already exists in the space.

Dan: I quite like the perimeter idea, turning a space inside out or flattening a space or doubling it up…

Lisa: You could also reverse project

Reb: Like the idea of the interior space acting like a backstage that we use for something else.

Dan: Think about Sara Oppenheimer’s latest work.

Department of Scheduling

The calendar is up and can be refreshed. Email Rebecca what we want in the show and Romy group deadlines.

Reb: A non-binding list. Types of things, rather than specifics.

Department of Publication

Seb: There are five kinds of content. We came up with three different ways the content could be dealt with. We are thinking of structure rather than metaphor. We split into three groups.

Bibliography, Presentation Text, Designer’s Statement, Paul text, Peter text

Kate, Andrew, Julie: We dealt with the idea of running two texts in parallel – Presentation and Designer’s Statement. We thought one possibility would be to customize the size and placement of your preferred text. Bibliography in the front. Paul and Peter would be at the end. There would be three basic templates – of how the two texts look in comparison. Paul could write about Presentation, Peter a reflection on Designer’s Statement.

Seb: Schedule to pass around. We’ve decided to customize a small run. But, in general, it will be sold on Lulu.

All: Questions of who will buy the book, the venues, distribution…

Reb: Jim and I sketched an idea that begins with bibliography, leads to publication text with images. The materials from Paul and Peter are in the middle of the book. One idea – the images can be organized by date made, but be on the same page as someone else’s text. Another idea – body of text that would be captioned images but interrupt text blocks. Another idea is to integrate the images into the text itself, where they fall, the change the structure of the text.

Seb: The size we are working to is 6×9 in, 200 pages. All of the sections of content is mirrored. Two texts. Two introductions. Two bibliographies. Thinking about the idea of two books – one idea set from the fall and a second one from the spring – that are shuffled together. Time stamps are running heads and shift depending on the section. Each section changes type, margin and column structure – the grid. Created an image grid so people can size their own images. Ect.

Dan: The book should be really accessible and readable. Legibility is paramount. On the other hand it should speak about graphic design, and it should push against its own structure. On the third hand, it could lead to the design of the space itself, influence the physicality of the space.

Rob: I think Gaby’s concern about the relationship about the different narratives is important. I think in general there is not enough distinction between the voices.

Seb: Do we like the idea?

Gaby: I like the idea of flexibility of choosing what text would be more prominent, as well as…

Lisa: The book doesn’t read as a strong statement to me at the moment, I didn’t see the chronology, themes need to be pushed more to the surface. It’s not reading to me right now.

Eric A: I think there’s something about the book that feels esoteric. Feels like something that a designer might find really fun to unpack, but might be ways that make it more… feels like an inside thing.

Lisa: Think about scale. I don’t do print, but it seems like relationships could be really exaggerated, played out.

Reb: I think we should establish our audience.

Dan: One of the challenges is to push at envelopes and create tension against the form of the book or the gallery, but to do that in a way that creates an experience of use that doesn’t lose the idea but helps persuade.

Lisa: I want to know what you are actually communicating. What is fascinating from an audience perspective is that we finally have the opportunity to read your thoughts. But I wish I could take in the message and then realize what the design should be…

Rob: Maybe we are looking at the book as a snapshot, and the exhibition is also a snapshot in a way. And our presentation of those, its less of a into, than a representation of.

Lisa: If I were to close my eyes, and think about this content, about this before and after structure, think about this body of work that is inspirational, that is influential, that you could read all the influences as a whole, then you can view the whole and then you can see the product of this work, and deal with the two type of images, and then what happens between the two statements. Then there is a real statement you are making about presenting the text and not just the work. The book needs to articulate itself, and…

Dan: It is ok if the book can teach something about how the program works, but it doesn’t have to be.

Lisa: The idea of reinforcing something new and introducing new variables, rather than using opportunities to define and set the structure of a book.

Rob: DOoyou think it is necessary to make that connection between two pieces of text as an outside viewer, to feel the progression from the class as a whole?

Lisa: Everyone is fascinated by this program. This class. But I think you want both. Addressing the need to look at an individuals progression and the classes progression – that is enough – it’s all there. I like the idea of those tiny images, how small can you go, to reference, the images without seeing it full size.

Eric A: It would make sense if the image was one that people keep repeating. It might make more sense.

Lisa: I think getting really tight on those rules…

Dan: For me the images from the fall presentation are vastly different from images of your work. But because you are the authors, the idea of framing your work on a copy camera and showing it boxed in seems not that right for me. Wouldn’t you want it to bleed off the page and seem like work, more like a magazine layout

Lisa: However if it is more about the statements, than that makes sense

Eric A: I think it would be really fun if people could grab space, like Kate’s idea, where we could take over the book, parts that were not so serious,

Dan: Why do you suddenly take on a critical posture, why do you set it in a way that is so distanced?

Seb: I also would like to say that the book is not an isolated object.

NOTES FROM FEB 5 MEETING

This session is being recorded by Rob on his web cam.

Dan: Passes out Wim Cuyvers text to read for next week. Today’s agenda: Go over departments. Lisa Strausfeld is coming to New Haven next Monday to share some time with us. Be ready with sketches for commentary.

All: Discussion about eating dinner from now on, instead of having class at this time, but this is not going to happen due to conflict.

Dan: Ask Max for space on the server for this class.

Department of Scheduling

If you can email a list of deliverables before Monday, we will have a combined iCal calendar up next week. The calendar is by department. Questions or comments can be delivered to Department of Scheduling inbox.

Dan: Suggests making calendars backwards in time. Starting from show installation.

Gaby: Wants to be updated on the calendar updates.

4:06pm

Department of Web Presence

Rob slowly configures his computer. The class awaits…

Rob: We discussed a number of websites. This is what we like:

http://www.as-found.net/ Seb: A collection of jpgs. It is literally structured like a blog. There is enough space between images that you can isolate items, view each on their own terms.

http://www.newstoday.com/

Rob: Simple four column layout divided into two sections. First example of the dashboard layout.

Seb: Degrees of privacy. All postings in all categories are immediately available.

http://www.showstudio.com/ Rob: Always updating, via text and images. A live link with phone video – the images are often rough – speaks of immediacy.

http://www.werkplaatstypografie.org/

Seb: What’s interesting is that it’s a single page. Everything loads at the same time. You always find it as the last person leaves it. Each of the images are sizable and dragable. Some problems with Safari and it works quite slowly.

Eric A: What about simultaneous users?

http://art.yale.edu/Home

Rob: We like the events, community, social aspects. We don’t need modularity. But, we enjoy that everyone can interact on the front end.

Seb: Don’t think we need as much complexity. But we enjoy the architecture.

http://del.icio.us/

Seb: The particular feature I like is the repeat of the url bar within the design of the site.

http://mog.com/

Seb: This is a music site. Another social site. All the components are editable, that users can change on the front end. When you change the page as a user there is instant feedback.

Rob: I like the mixing of myspace and the functionality of the site in relation to content.

Seb: Combination of widgets that are manually made and

http://www.flickr.com/

Rob: One aspect that we like is that the rollovers are not always apparent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Seb: I have been obsessed with the history aspect of posting. Our site doesn’t have to look like wikipedia. But it could be an interesting function.

http://lot-ek.com/ Rob: These are Eric Nevin’s sites. (Eric is not in class today.) It has a very finished look.

http://eyebeam.org/

Rob: When you first arrive on the site it is very sleek. The site unfolds over time.

http://www.coudal.com/

Rob: Another blog style site. A lot of these sites have a very vertical form.

http://990000.com/all/

Rob: Another everything all at once view

http://freitag.ch/

Sam: I like the horizontal feel. The endless scrolling navigation. And the use of rollovers.

Department of Publication

Reb: Our presentation book would include: Designer Statements Our bibliographies Some images of work And Paul has offered to write an afterward. Thinking of asking Peter Hall as well. We talked about sizes, production values, different structures.

Gaby: What will the role of the documentation be and how will the physical exhibition be represented in the show?

Reb: We want to have the publication at the show, done in advance, so that will be more the function of the website.

Seb: We want the publication to mark the intellectual weight of the show. When Paul was here and he gave the presentations he suggested we publish our slideshows, and offered to write a piece, and it seems this would allows the reader to sense the development of our work, our time here. As well as positioning our work in the context of the larger discipline.

Seb: We are thinking of having a split run. One with higher production quality. And then make something on LuLu that is printed on demand. Perhaps sold on Amazon.

Dan: I think that it could be nice to publish a monograph. But also think there’s an opportunity to really tie the catalog to both the show and website.

Reb: We have thought of some ways, that maybe a dust jacket appears in the show for example…

Seb: That publication and website are part of it. Like Wings.

Dan: It needs to avoid being a memento. If it is worth publishing, it’s worth distributing.

All: Discussion of rights. Of copyright protection. Educational purposes. Discussion of when the designer’s statement is due.

Dan: Think its time to start sketching.

Eric A: A combined bibliography? Like Spin?

Reb: Model ideas. There are two ways to look at it…

Julie: Maybe people can submit their presentations now.

Rob: We should also send them for another round of editing.

Gaby: Think there should be space between the two pieces of writing, because for some of us that exists.

Reb: I think the middle step is the work. I think that it is interesting too, to see the two together and the progress will become evident.

Gaby: Concerns about the disjunction.

Seb: Thinks that the designer’s statement is a historical text.

All: Discussion about the cohesiveness, or not, of the essays.

Rob: Is it about the topics? Or the designers?

Dan: I think it important to see the models. And our progress in the exhibit will help shape this form.

Department of PR

Discussion of going to Senate and Art Space. Handed out Lists of who we want to contact – online and magazines. Also, want to probably reach potential employers.

Our basic idea is to have two sorts of contacts. A primer contact and a secondary contact. Also want to get on calendars like AIGA. And contact local radio like NPR or Yale Radio. Our rough schedule is that right after spring break we want to send a primer kit out.

Dan: Also think about potential critics for your work.

Reb: 6 months is the bare minimum to send out a release.

Dan: Think we need to think more about sponsorship.

Dan: Think more about the New York connection. Art space is an interesting idea.

4:56pm

Department of Physical Presence

Reb: Came up with an idea that we haven’t sketched.

Eric A: We were trying to figure out multiple ways to curate in the same show without overlaps and duplicates. One possible solution would be to have a wall that has work, and then a slide projection that overlays the wall space. Possibly with x’s or other pieces of work.

Dan: We don’t have that many projectors. It’s probably easier to do it with slides.

Seb: But you could output film and make projections that way.

Reb: Also want more than video.

Reb: And the idea of being able to move things around.

Eric A: Talking about the physical and the representations of things.

Dan: Brightness is a crucial concern. Shut all the windows? Favor slides vs. videos?

Dan: I think it’s a good place to start. The sketch for next week will be crucial. Important to see if trails between students really exist. Also need to think if the change is flat, how will it help them enter into the space.

Reb: We came to this from the exact opposite direction. Of thinking about the physical movement of work from one room to another.

Rob: To me the idea of pulleys is related to the idea of asking people to both interpret our work and then to do more work by moving objects and relate the work. I am thinking about the context of not only classical gallery setting, but also the second layer of physicality…

Gaby: I like this idea of experiencing the show in many different ways, and that each time you see something different, offers you more than you usually get from a show.

Sam: Maybe this is an good problem for us, because many of us our interested in this sort of design problem.

Rob: Afraid that it is too much work for the viewer.

Reb: I am worried most about the flatness.

Romy: Suggests acetate walls, transparency,

Dan: The riskier ideas, maybe the more rewarding the outcome. How much do you want to lie with the user? What is the spectrum?

Eric A: Can we envision ways to use this to our advantage? How to highlight or negate things on the wall? How to show a history of posters when viewing one?

Reb: Also thinking about how this impacts schedule… This doesn’t account for interactive work yet. Or books.

Reb: Think we need to think about what if this was one aspect of the show, vs. the overarching idea of the show. We started out about talking about having spaces that were like an apartment or garage sale – which became micro-environment.

Eric A: We were also thinking about ideal ways about looking at work.

All: Re-discussion of Thursday’s discussion, especially about environments.

Dan: Also important to talk about the ideas behind your work. And about how to talk about your work in general. The augmented reality idea seems the most compelling concept for now because it seems to address two problems at once.

5:25

Dan: For next week there should be sketches of this idea. And another sketch of an alternative idea. Then we need to make schedule. Make a space on Ernie. Publications need to look at sponsorship and publishers. Think about Senate Sponsorship. We need to submit lists of work we want in the show. Email Dan mission statements.

WEBCAM IMAGES

Exhibition Class 2.5.07

NOTES FROM FEB 1 MEETING

– I came a bit late. In the midst of conversation, we begin:

Reb: Something visible we can do, to make people interact with our books…

Brad: There is also food at bookstores.

Andrew: Turn it into a Barnes and Nobles.

Brad: The lounge idea, I think that’s one way to let people engage with work in a comfortable setting.

Rob: Will people really want to interact with books in that way?

Seb: The funny thing is we have four rooms, we could present the books four different ways…

All: Discussing books on stools vs. books on tables – last year’s show…

Eric A: A way of showing video that’s like watching TV, each TV has everyone’s videos on it, we can make a DVD.

Seb: If you have TVs you have to have headphones.

Eric A: Maybe it is not treated that way everywhere.

Brad: What about having TVs with our books being flipped through.

Seb: Really break up the space…

Eric A: Saw a show where there were carved spaces, houses…

Sam: What if we had a collective video?

Eric A: Video Exquisite Corpse.

All: Discussion… Bring our own furniture. Sell it at the end. Bring beds.

Rob: One of my goals it to elevate the work rather than downplay it. I don’t want it to be ultra consumer – sell the work. Does graphic design belong in a garage sale space?

Jim: Use tape to designate space.

Sam: What is the metaphor of the house?

Eric N: Design in the comfort of home.

Brad: Maybe it’s less the idea of home, and more us getting out of the house…

Romy: What are we saying?

Reb: Common interest in private space.

Gaby: Comfort of your surroundings.

Rob: Fine balance between what’s important: space or work?

Seb: What’s more important, distancing effect of gallery or…

Rob: There could be something to our advantage of distancing the work making it more important. You can shit on my work or you can admire it from a distance.

Reb: I don’t think that’s the spectrum.

Seb: The work that we are showing is the remnants of work, maybe our work has to do with a different set of values – do you want to bring the context back in… I like the idea that there are different spaces. I don’t think they all need to be the same, like domestic or consumer or …

Sam: What would the spaces be?

Eric A: Alleyways, Bedrooms…

Jim: In the end, bringing in our furniture, it might just look like a closet.

Brad: Isn’t the impetus the thread itself?

Jim: I agree with Seb, I don’t think we need to be interior decorators, but there should be a plan.

Seb: Another constraint is we are going to have five days.

Reb: I don’t want to rule anything out now.

Gab: I wouldn’t rely on first years, because of timing with their critiques.

Sam: Ok. One idea is Micro-Spaces… What else?

...

Rob: What did you guys feel about your critique?

Reb: That might be an opposite direction, something that is more performance based, that fills the whole space.

Seb: That is time based. A girl at the Werkplaats made a video where people were showing work, but you could only see their hands – the performance of showing your work is part of being a designer, a lot of the work depends on the telling of the story…

Rob: What about the computer, there’s been a discussion of videos, but not computers. Has anyone thought about that?

Seb: Computers are hard, especially considering the chat.

Brad: No one wants to do that in a gallery.

Seb: A computer on a pedestal won’t get interacted with.

Eric A: I think it’s best on the web to put computer work up on the web. Then you are going to see more interaction. I am not advocating to get rid of the computer, but you might need some incentive like email.

Rob: But you are also assuming that people are engaging with your print work by just standing there.

Seb: Needs engagement…

Rob: (Defends Position)

Gaby: Maybe we need more computers, and also spend more effort in making the interaction worthwhile.

Seb: If it moves and it is shiny people will look at it.

Eric A: Can we make a script that runs everyones programs?

Reb: Or run a screensaver that runs everyone’s program?

Seb: Or screensavers that explain how the chats work? I’m against written captions.

Brad: At the lecture tonight Rob Storr mentioned he’s not a fan of labeling artworks.

Rob: But I think by taking it away you lose something.

Seb: Then there’s the Dia’s model of taking caption cards from holders when you want more explanation and then returning them where you are done

Julie: What about a guide?

Rob: What about real vs. fake? We are presenting our work as a real thing.

...

8:40pm

Kate: Gallery Space in NYC/Berlin infiltrated people’s homes…

Eric N: Has anyone been to the John Soane’s Museum in London? It’s really a house museum of a collector that is absolutely jam packed with stuff he collected all over the world and it is the pure excess of it. You kinda feel like your on a ship where everything has its place and there are also windows and ways to peer into rooms that you are going to visit next…

Mike: I like the idea of making the space smaller where we can build walls to shrink things.

Eric N: In a small space everything feels big.

Gaby: We can appropriate all different ideas

Eric A: Do you care about the fact that there was a lot of waste last year?

...

Julie: Karaoke

Rob: Like a Karaoke situation. What would encourage that? The bookstore seems more appropriate than anything. Talking about the way books are put next to each other and create juxtapositions – maybe we can create connections not based on space alone but we encourage those connections.

Eric A: So we have to decided whether we curate a poster room vs. a room of everyone’s bodies of work.

Kate: Could do it by projects, see how people solve things differently?

Sam: That feels to much like seeing college portfolios to me.

Reb: What if we curate by themes?

Seb: How many themes are we going to find?

Reb: Or seem like it’s pigeon-holing?

Rob: But, it can become an opening up, a progression, to use to our advantage. Which seems much more rewarding.

Reb: What works best for me is to structure my work chronologically, but for Andrew it might be by medium.

Gaby: But I think it’s nice to making it collective.

Rob: I don’t like the collective.

Seb: Who is the show for?

All: Us, our grandparents, our parents, our friends…

Eric A: There are going to be more people than last year cause school is still going on.

Kate: I think about it as another project.

Gaby: Do we have to cater to outside groups? This is our books in form, in space.

Kate: Like a retrospective.

Rob: I’d like to diss that idea. …

Eric A: I think it’s nice for people to get to know you without talking to you.

Rob: We are more interesting as individuals than as a group.

Sam: But we are not working alone.

Brad: Our studio environment is individual but in a shared space. Should we represent that in the gallery? Do we reflect what are last two years have been like?

Kate: I’m fine with working together.

Rob: I think that is an interesting aspect, the duplicates aspect. Duplicates of titles in 50 Reading Lists. Or our slideshows. It’s come up this year.

Kate: What if in the exhibition guide each person wrote their own way to navigate the space – 16 paths through 1 space?

Julie: Maybe that goes back to Seb’s idea to present the work differently.

Eric A: So everyone can be both isolated and/or we can be a collective.

Seb: What if there are four ways to present the work. The strategy was different each time?

Rob: Maybe these things can be determined by people who come through the gallery.

Sam: Participants could move pieces into different spaces.

Kate: The most interactive exhibition I worked on was an exhibit that asked people to hammer nails into a wall, and each nail created a different color shadow… The less finished it is, the more basic the parts, the more interactive the space may be.

Eric N: And we don’t have to use computers to have interaction.

Rob: And allowing people to finish something we start is the best type of interaction.

Reb: Why would that work?

Rob: Creating potential is interesting to me. The openness of the color book.

All: Could be awful, based on past exhibits in the art gallery space.

Kate: What would we want the interaction to be?

Eric A: If you looked at this work, check this box?

Kate: One designer should get kicked out of the exhibition every day.

Rob: The reality model.

Sam: Everyone’s going to leave the program crying.

Julie: Everyone has their bags packed.

Eric A: No, How about Candid Camera: posters that curse you out. Or a whole new layout everyday.

Reb: Until it all got condensed into a big ball.

Kate: Paper Shredder.

Rob: Strike through Reality.

Julie: A Gym?

Eric A: Once, at PS 1, I went through the back of the space, there was a tunnel, climbing…

Andrew: A giant hamster cage.

All: Manhole

Kate: I’m into the garage sale idea.

Reb: I am leery of having an show that has analog in the real world.

Seb: What if we use the exhibition metaphor? A show that is a show.

Jim: What if we make a giant book?

Reb: What if the posters became a book and the books were hung on the wall?

Kate: The light bulb scenario. How many ways…

Reb: The more we narrow it down, the less creative space to eventually lead us somewhere new.

Seb: What if we start with the things, the objects themselves and look inside towards out?

All: Crickets, ants…

Eric A: Model of the exhibit, projected onto the wall.

…

Kate: When I was in Japan, we saw a list of best views in the country. One was to walk up a hill, bend down, look between your legs.

Reb: Specific instructions on how to view the work.

Rob: Focusing on the two dimensional vs. the three dimensional. Pictures are much better than the view itself.

Eric A: Camera Set-Up.

Kate: Made for Reproduction.

Seb: Catalog could be a press kit for immediate release. Partake in the promotional mechanisms.

Jim: Human form cut outs of ourselves.

Seb: Fun and low budget.

Kate: Green screen into our videos.

Jim: I like the green screen, like a plotter, compose new posters from our own posters.

Eric A: Think it addresses the current moment. Talking to the world. Think You Tube: let’s you upload videos as you capture them with a webcam.

Andrew: We could have a thesis show channel on You Tube.

All: (Talk of drugs. I have omitted some comments here)

Seb: We want a guard.

Julie: Interns?

Seb: Disposable cameras. A website that was a link to a MySpace Page, a Flickr Page, a You Tube Page.

Eric A: What if we used the Colony space for something?

Seb: As a general idea – a show that is a virtual show.

…

Julie: Recap – What are our main ideas?

Micro-Spaces Made for Reproduction 16 paths through 16 bodies of work

Note Rebecca wants to get Physical Kate want to be on the Publication Team

NOTES FROM JAN 29 MEETING

Show starts May 4, Friday

Opening May 12

Take down by May 17

Show is open for 10 days (give or take)

Seb: How much the show is visited past the opening? Should we be there throughout the show, should it have a publication component? How many people actually come? Just for the opening?

Julie: In our case also, the show will be open a few days prior to official opening. Dan: Helps that the show is a little earlier this year.

Reb: Concurs

Dan: Things should be lively, but this is not the Institute of Contemporary Art.

Seb: Maybe we can use this one day as an event, use the entire course of the day to draw everyone in.

Kate: Arrives late and is sorry that she has class until 3:30pm

Mission Statements

Rob: In no particular order. Using a set of raw materials at home in the art world, but utilized in an unexpected way. Like push pins or tape. I don’t want the exhibition to have the appearance of being a finished project. Environmentally friendly. Exhibition on demand. A record of documentation. Online presence. And a personalization aspect.

Romy: To create a cohesive space. To work together without watering down ideas. To be playful. Explore how space can be designed. Push and understand exhibition design

Carter: Not sure how I want the experience to happen. Want something multi-faceted. Parts. Something that changes over time. Organized PR. A record and online presence or/also physical book.

Julie: I agree with everyone. Dynamic. Not static. To have a cohesive critical perspective. Or non-critical. Think about traditions and default definition of exhibit design. To reach out to the community outside of Yale – New Haven ect.

Brad: I was curious. Everyone paid 200 dollars? 250 – 300? What does that go towards?

Dan: It just pays for the exhibition. You don’t pay it to the school.

Carter: Printer. Extension cords. Chain. Benches. Wood. Light bulbs.

Dan: We can talk about what we get for free. Furniture. What Max and Sandra loan out. Projectors, Screen, but they refused loaning out the EMacs from the lab. Not so much printing.

Brad: One other question. Other exhibitions (painters, sculptures) do they have a class? Why do we have a class? Is it training? For working on exhibitions in the future? Or showing our work in a gallery setting?

Dan: To get your work out. And since there hasn’t been any funding. To get together. Figure out how to put your work in the space. Though design is different, because it falls under the category of the practice. Yeah, maybe you will be exhibition designers. But, even if not, you’ll also work in a space. Have a lot of parts, require collaboration. Goals of the class, to make a show and to apply your thesis to the collaborative process. Brad: I feel like we all make work that is provocative, and talks about the world in general. Address how exhibition design could be experimental, different. I’d like to spend as little money as possible. The more we can spend with found materials would be more expressive. Afraid of gimmicks. Worried that spending money might contribute to this. Dan: Also supports spending little money as possible. Attitude of economy.

Brad: Create an experience with the work itself.

Dan: I think that’s pretty hard.

Brad: Yeah, but I want to make that more the focus.

Reb: We are doing that somewhat by being in a gallery setting. And we have to consider that we are both showing our work in a gallery, but not just tacking our work on the walls.

Kate: The gimmick makes our show more interesting, rather than adhering to the same standards that sculptors or other artists use.

Brad: I don’t want it to be cheesy.

Dan: Consider the absurdity of the situation

Sam: (I went. couldn’t also type…)

Seb: I think two aspects to the show – Both a celebration of our time together. Should be a great parting. Other end coming from sixteen practices carving out a discipline, rather than the products, pieces of work are partial embodiments of our approach. The portfolio might pigeon-holing us.

Dan: Can your interests be evident without going through the work?

Seb: Documentary, Snippets without going through serifs or sans-serifs. Present as a conversation about what we could be making…

Dan: I agree with that focus, but it is no different than the painters or the sculptors. You go to a show to understand an artists practice, but you can best understand that through the work. But, that said, the curatorial approach could get these ideas out – Is it about remixing, is about curtains between each piece. I like the dialectic between 16 practices and 16 sets of objects. but need the work

Seb: Not that objects don’t have an intrinsic value, but

Andrew: Agree with emphasis on documentation. Maybe more important then getting there. Rather than just result of end product.

Eric N: I’d like to see the thing as a conversation. One takes place over time. Two, it is two-way. And if you come in halfway through, it’s halfway done. It has a lifespan. Not just a conversation between us, but also with the people who come to look at it.

Rob: Question? Should we determine the form, now, of conversation? Do we interject or go around?

Dan: No. Speak. What’s on your mind?

Jim: Creating a space not aligned with conventions of exhibition. Over time changes. Work within the constraints provided. Rather than outsource for materials. Like getting another printer. Fuel creativity.

Brad: Let’s steal stuff and document it.

Rob: Think there’s a fine line between more work and more money.

All: Chatter Chatter Chatter

Kate: Thought last years was budget.

Dan: The budget is not that big.

Rob: Time is money.

Mike: Very interested in an exhibit that changes and grows and evolves over time. I would like to have it placed where we can go more than once. A set of things that lives outside the gallery walls might be the most important thing to me.

Eric N: In terms of a conversation. I think there could literally be a chat experience, maybe use our chat clients. Maybe people don’t even know who they’re talking to. Could be concrete as well as metaphor.

Dan: A thing, more than a collection of objects, that we can use?

Mike: Yeah, a space we could use?

Dan: Would you be content if it was useful to you guys?

Seb: Don’t Feed the Designers

Dan: Might be smart, the thing that reaches outside is a publication. The thing within is our working space. To activate our situation. Brad: I am into that, but the space with Mark earlier, the space was only active if he was there, but when he was gone, it lost its magic.

4:26 pm

Seb: Slot Machines?

Dan: Design is always the cookout, art just recently came to the cookout.

Reb: Interrogate the idea of exhibition in multiple ways, rather than monolithic. Add complexity. Acknowledge weirdness of design in the gallery setting. To make materials on the website that extend life and audience of the exhibition. An opportunity for people to leave something behind. Given what happened this semester, with conversations about design and art and the boundaries and commonalities, it might be a good place to explore that.

Dan: What Rob Storr said about design – this discovery in the 60s that techniques of sign-making could be appropriated by art, which then transcended sign-making. But, we makes signs. While we are looked on with admiration, but yet imagining that the result could hold a higher purpose.

Reb: I have had so many conversations that I didn’t expect to have. There is a feeling that we sell ourselves. But they don’t recognize that they sell themselves.

Seb: That conversation is productive for who? For them? For what? For us?

Kate: I think it is productive. Our work functions on many levels, both in it’s surface and underlying purposes. Transcending – closer to art making?

Seb: Art is inherently better. It’s common parlance. To look at art as a source of value. But design is not important to function like art, but contained within the practice.

Kate: What the definition of art is can be argued till the cows come home. But, it is how the work is approached – how can we create that atmosphere with design without parading as art.

Dan: Well, there is no need to be dogmatic.

Reb: I am just paying attention to part of the moment. This moment.

Kate: I agree with most of what’s been said. I am personally most interested in the way we can work with media. How the exhibit can proliferate online. Like the whole space could be empty, but be online. I also think it would be great if it was theatrical in some way. Grand. Larger than life.

Rob: Performative?

4:39 pm

Rob: This conversation thing. That keeps cropping up. I am wondering what is our audience because this pre-supposes there is someone who wants to have a conversation. I think it’s not likely to happen, unless we make it happen. So, within that is a forced conversation, which design tends to already implement in those situations. Like, in most of my work.

Dan: That’s were the lounge comes in. What does it take?

Brad: What if the website was the show? As projections. Could be interactive.

Dan: A partial answer to the forced conversation. Not because you need a resolution, maybe your work isn’t even that conducive to conversation. But, the quality of the conversation is in much of your work and work processes, so maybe that is in your last piece.

Kate: Not everyone is going to respond, not everyone has to.

Rob: I like the idea of the conversation, but I think it’s hard.

Dan: Thomas Hirschorn invites guests, invites speakers, 24 hours around the clock. Lot of work. Need to commit to solving the problems that are most important. And that involves major trade-offs.

4:39 pm

Dan: 6 weeks before we can be in production. Scheduling Questions.

Rob: Who is our audience? If it’s for potential employers, do we want long rants? What is our level of intimacy?

Kate: What if the space was physical?

Dan: Find yourself imagining a user-base that doesn’t exist.

Rob: Who’s going to contribute?

Dan: What’s your incentive? How do you decide to do the work if you don’t know who it’s for? But some of the goal could be just to make the show and make the space and make it beautiful. But you don’t need to have an audience to make nice work.

Rob: I am asking myself why. Beyond my personal record.

Dan: Or it has to be fun. Or literally building the show piece by piece. And none of the work done now is a wasted effort, cause it’s all done towards the final.

Sam: We can use this space to share what we do divided into groups.

Dan: Could open it to the public, or not close it…

4:39 pm

• Ministry of Peace In charge of Space, 3-Dimensional Design Programing. Time and Events. Physical Presence.
• Ministry of Plenty Department in charge of planning. Project Management. Budgeting Sponsorship.
• Ministry of Truth Press. Media. How and who hears about the show.
• Ministry of Love 2-D and Web Presence.

• Project Management
• Sponsorship
• Party and Entertainment
• Publication

Should there be Chairs? Should people rotate?

• Waste
• Assembly
• Planning
• Documentation w/the Understanding everyone’s doing Design

Seb: Each group can establish resources, and manages one aspect, and recruit more people for certain tasks.

Julie: Some of these can be individual people

Jim: Shouldn’t we figure out the concept of the show before we figure out what we have to do?

Julie: Should we break into smaller groups for the design concept? We have the same type of ideas anyway.

5:13 pm

Dan: For next week everyone needs sketches.

• Physical Presence of the Show: Julie, Carter, Brad, Jim; + Department of Change
• Promotion PR and Media: Carter, Kate, Rob, Romy
• Publication, in the sense of something lasting: Seb, Mike, Julie, Reb, Jim, Andrew
• Website: Sam, Eric N., Andrew, Rob, Seb
• Schedule / Calendar: Romy
• Documentation: Reb, Sam, Rob

Everyone work on physical presence of the show. But, also start working on the others.

Dan: What happens in the class is recorded for posterity. Put it online by Monday.

Carter: Do you think that we could ask Sheila or Stacey to produce books for the show funded/underwritten by Yale? Can I not get my trashed copy back? Issue of not turning off printers after commencement.

Dan: Up until we graduate, you can print anything.

5:47 pm

Kate: Want to again raise the idea of a statement.

Brad: I meant less political and economic, but more about design.

All: Discussion about making a statement, about the world, about the profession, about context.

Dan thinks that education is a good goal. That there’s a generosity in it.

Kate: Making the work more accessible…

Dan: Well, maybe showing there is a sense of energy here, or useful work here, or truer representation of what goes on. Not just that you can see the work, but you can understand it’s qualities. I think most of your work is not very accessible. It could be pretty alienating.

Sam: Rebuttal.

Dan: Like I said, I don’t think the work being accessible should bother you. It is not meant to be self-contained, there are various points of access in your work. Various ways to find openings. Find the ways that your work finds expression through presentation. Self-examination might hold some to keys to make an exhibition.

6:04 pm

Dan: Any problems and concerns with your crit

Brad: I made a lot of work and didn’t have enough time to present it. I have a lot of things I want to talk about.

Rob: How my work was discussed, It was discussed not in the context of how I wanted it discussed. Change the dialogue around my work. The crit point is the program itself, then you are judged in this context. Rather hard if your work does not align with the program’s values. An uphill battle.

. . . . .

6:20 pm

Dan: Structuring time to present. Asking of question. Knowing material, time, how to take time to talk about time-cosuming works. Probably a few different good ways to summarize what you do and who you are is open ended. Catalyzes conversation in an honest way. The choice isn’t between reducing your work on one hand. And not being able to provide any useful entry into your work is not a good thing.

Reb: To think about the exhibition, that we are going to have our final crits in that space as well.

Dan: Think about noise. About that point as an introduction to your work. And also as an introduction into the exhibit.

IMAGES (PRETTY)

Exhibition Class 1.29.07

NOTES FROM FEB 19 MEETINGS

Hi all,

Due to the separation of the exhibition meetings yesterday into three locations, the documentation dept might be at a loss (dept of distributed spycraft?). I had some impressions, from my movement through the sequence of the meetings and people involved.

Dept of Physical Manifestation is morphing into Dept of Inventory Control, aka Dept of Supply. They’re sending reclamation agents throughout the studio, the building, and the campus in pursuit of raw materiel that you can use to make your show on the cheap. They’ll also be capturing this material into a catalog or inventory of some kind.

You guys seemed to initially feel that this approach of space-building-with-materials-at-hand, of sustainability, or of materials recycling, could generate the show itself. But I felt you had expressed only a means to an end, without articulating the end. For example, you know how to make a wall now, but you don’t yet know how to decide what walls you need. What do you want people to do in the space you make. What work do you want to show and what should be its disposition. In general, what are your needs, as Wim Cuyvers would put it.

In response to that, Eric A said that the processes of supply and demand should come simultaneously from opposite ends and meet in the middle. But it’s not yet clear who is actually staffing the Dept of Demand. Julie said that maybe the recycling idea should be a solution rather than a brief. In other words, “we needed to make a wall, oh we made it with this desk we found”—not “we had some desks, look we turned them into walls.”

For me, I’d agree with Julie’s take on the disposition of the Dept of Inventory. It also seems to me that your eventual assembly of these materials should be in some sense beautiful, not random. It should have some delicacy as a series of gestures (Tara Donovan? Dept of Harder Than it Looks? although I don’t think that work is particularly spatial), or a considered movement back and forth between the delicate and the brutal (Thomas Hirschhorn?). An appropriate word could be “bricolage” in the senses meant by Levi-Strauss, de Certeau (productive consumption), punk rock, or evolutionary developmental biology. With those things said, in my opinion the Dept of Inventory/Supply can form a very good, if incomplete, part of a brief for the total design of your show… And furthermore, the need to gradually shape, curate, annotate, or garden a potentially unarticulated mass of “goo” into something careful and beautiful, without killing anything, seemed to reoccur later in the web meeting, especially as asserted by Romy at one point. More on this later.

One more thing about the Dept of Supply/Inventory before I move on. You talked about it as a way to identify and gather building materials. But I think it could also be a way to identify and gather work, which is also an activity that needs to happen. Soliciting, extracting, cataloging, repurposing, leveraging, making do with the work of the past three years that is on your computers. In other words, it seems you have two equally problematic challenges facing you: how do you produce a successful exhibition as consumers of the resources available to you; but also, how do your exhibition processes consume the materials you’ve already produced (your work). I’d love for your exhibition to be a fully-articulated solution to that two-part brief.

To the Book Trader now. I’ve been really impressed by the lists growing at http://art.yale.edu/GD2007DeptPromotionAndMedia . This Dept’s efforts have the potential to expose the program and the show to a massive amount of people, some who would come in the flesh and others who would use the website or who would just give “mindshare.” We talked about making the press release into a more engaging, accurate, and critical document while still sitting comfortably within the normative form of such a thing. (There is the obvious challenge that you don’t yet know what your show is about, but that’s only a challenge.) I urged you to focus this department on solving a simple problem: how to clearly, honestly, and accessibly communicate what you lot are up to, in this department and with this show.

You listed several possible forms for an invitation. There were three that I really liked, because I think they would work well for the goal of honest and successful advertising. - 16 page book: A day in the life (of the studio) (full bleed images?) - 16 page book: Each designer needs to contribute one existing piece or part of a piece of their work, using the criteria “would this be good for the invitation.” - 16 page book: Each designer needs to spend one hour working on one page for the invitation.

Those ideas might also start to reinforce the idea of “consumptive production” already engaged by the Dept of Inventory, and to begin a process of work selection that could simply be useful.

On that note, segue to Eric Nevin’s house. The web group showed off an application they’ve made that allows each of the 16 of you to instantly post images, which then appear as a long scrolling bunch of images. I think that that project is all about making it easy to publish diverse images to the website—diverse in the sense that they come from all 16 of you, and are presumably either of your work or related to your interests.

The challenge that I think you’ve taken on with that project is a kind of resource extraction—how to get your classmates to contribute images. This is an important problem on the web as well, and so I think the website could define its brief as an attempt to solve this problem within the domain of your studio, using all available means: extremely fluid or efficient interface design, application architecture, attention to metaphor, social engineering (see drinking), and best-of-breed approaches to the relationship between effort and incentive and to the elimination of barriers to entry.

The web group is talking about releasing new versions of this application at regular intervals, with increased features for curating or organizing the set or adding more kinds of content—the timeline being the one along which the web team is able to program and design those features, and also reacting to the content contributions that have been made at each stage so far.

I’m quite impressed by what you’ve done so far in this area, and basically think you should go forward with it in this way.

As we were talking about those things, I asked whether you thought it would be possible to gather a thousand images from your classmates in this way. I was wondering about it, because we were talking about whether it would be meaningful to create trails or collections within the set of images, and so quantity seemed relevant. Romy said (paraphrasing), “Maybe, if it’s any old images, but that’s unacceptable: we need these images to be the good ones.” For me, the rightness of that question was a moment when I felt I understood the problematic of your show the most clearly so far: as a conscious push and pull (among the 16 of you), or a conscious time-based evolution (over the next few weeks): between collecting and curating, between disorder and order, or between “goo” (usually means “biomass”) and the things you can make from it or of it.

A thread that emerged rather strongly from the PR and web meetings was the need for efficacy: making it succeed, making it honest, meeting your needs, being fast. The gallery group expressed a similar ideal, although in an as yet more exclusively aesthetic way, the needs of that group being as yet less clear I think.

So this is what I’d like to ask you all to do this week. This assignment is for each of the 16 of you, working independently.

An exception can be for individuals who already have more than a couple hours “homework” this week for this class, due to their responsibilities to their main department: you can skip this assignment if you wish. Web, Publication, Inventory/Supply, and PR Departments do all need to make progress as planned.

Here is the assignment:

Each of you: Go back to your goals for the show that you wrote for the second class. Draw a proposal for the gallery that could accomplish your goals, and be ready to explain why it does so (and why in an interesting way). In your proposal, consider using found/at-hand/recycled/reclaimed materials in pursuit of your goals. Also, you must give specific consideration to specific projects that actually exist in the studio: your own, or other people’s. You can design the entire gallery space in this way, or your proposal may require only a small amount of space. Also, your proposal can incorporate all the work of the show, or as little as a single piece.

Be free with respect to scale: even if your proposal includes only one piece of work, it can take up the entire gallery if you want, or just a tiny corner.

Unfortunately, I won’t be here on Monday. Exhibition that day will be taken over either by Paul, or by Lisa.. more on this in a bit. In either case, you should make coherent, beautiful, succinct-but-complete presentations of your ideas to date, and the class that day will take the form of a crit with minimal discussion of logistics.

Over, Dan