Group Growth
Over the next two weeks as a group we came across our first hurdle. After meeting with S.Poulter on the 23rdit was clear what was missing. With a strong research pack and our questionnaire data being collected. As a group we needed to do some deeper development and have a initial branding package, which we were still waiting on from the two graphics members. By the 25th we had met to discuss the questionnaire feedback that had been collected. From this the weekly task sheet was created to make sure we all hit our targets. On the 2nd April we pitched our project so far to Phil and Dr Leigh Morland. This was a very difficult pitch with only myself willing to speak and being in ill health it was very difficult to present with no support from the group. Consequently, we had some very strong opinionated feedback from Phil questioning the purpose and possibilities to execute this business. From this one member questioned the project as a whole and was wanting to scrap all work and go back to the drawing board even though hadn’t contributed anything themselves. I though back to Dr L.Morlands lecture about movement/risk and my old teachers metaphor of the wall and the curtain.
Personal Growth
These two weeks were probably the hardest so far, with members not willing to do any work yet throw negative opinions about my own was very difficult to navigate. Reflecting on the previous weeks I took two decisions. One – to advise that we all take the 16 personalities test to see how we can communicate better. Two - to take the lead with one other member to ensure that we can hit our targets. Having been in the design industry we are always faced with push backs; no one has ever pitched a first concept and a client has said yes to. Feedback creates two responses, One, run; Two, Develop. Seeing some members run in conjunction with myself and one other stick with the concept and develop formed these natural leadership roles for Megan and I. With one extraverted and the other introverted will create realistic achievements for the group and project and from this we set out more person-to-person tasks.
“ As managers, Protagonists make the people who work for them feel not just motivated but also inspired.”
16 personalities. (n.d.)
“Compassionate and fair, Advocate managers often take pride in identifying their subordinates’ unique strengths.”
16 personalities. (n.d.)
Personality results:
Animator – Turbulent Protagonist
Communication and Promoter – Protagonist
Graphic designer – Turbulent Debater
Graphic designer – Didn’t partake.
Research
The collected data from the questionnaire made it easier to designate basic key areas that must be included within the space. Initial exterior Mill Huddersfield research from week one allowed three initial exterior mock-ups. One more modern and the others heavily influenced by the existing Textile Mills. From feedback from the group it was clear that the two level Mill inspired façade was more cohesive with both the Historical context and proposal. When researching the University Campus, it was apparent that the newer buildings were contemporary stylised. So, by taking this risk of a traditional façade it was very important that the interior is traditional whilst still being contemporary.
This research led me to focus on Traditional vs Modernism, this development not only led to surface level design styles but a deeper evaluation of societal meaning behind the debate. With a modern-day world now upon us it felt imperative to dissect the transition of why design styles are now no longer black and white.
The journal article by Fedja Vukić (2009) depicts the rationale behind this, with controversial statements such as ‘history and theory of design could possibly, as one type of interdisciplinary “critical dialectic” research, aid in the clarification of theoretical and practical contradictions of hybrid identity and paralysing traditions at the periphery of modernization’. Vukić touches on the ‘observed observer’ a lot throughout this article, and how they manipulate a design but are subconsciously being manipulated. ‘If design still has elements of fine art, then this is due to the adaptation of its methods to the wishes of those who commissioned design intervention.’ In conjunction with this a survey published the same year by YouGov (2009) stated that ‘77% of respondents who selected a design, from a choice of 4, chose traditional architecture over contemporary styles.’ The Article published by Dezeenwire, R.Adam (2009) talks about the online findings by YouGov (2009) and how architects are pushing their own agenda and now have been ‘forced to accept that most people like traditionally designed houses because this has been proved over and over again in surveys’.
I didn’t agree with this statement. As a designer we are never forced, I myself try to design for longevity this neo-traditional style for me that R.Adams is trying to justify here is merely a label that gets thrown around but never truly depicts what is created. The notion that we have now been forced to me is delusional, we as an industry first objective is to listen to clients and work with them not to follow there design otherwise what’s our purpose in the relationship. It is society and the natural progression of societal values that has forced these labels and expectations and like Vukić is trying to depict, it is whether there can truly be one style or another and the value of a space is a true reflection of the intender. Even though the article is focusing on Croatian Design these two articles have arose many questions that can be applied to the whole design industry.
Vukić article title ‘Hybrid Identities and Paralyzing Traditions…’ really puts into question whether this sense of a ‘traditional’ space that is intended to be created here may be paralysing it without myself even realizing, is it possible to have a Hybrid Identity without being forced to damage the space?
Comments