I think one of the most odd things about learning is the moment where you know enough to realize how much you don’t know
There is a reach to knowledge and skill. You know what
you know, and through time and effort and diligent focus,
you’ve also come to realize a few of the things that you
don’t know. You begin to understand that those unknowns
are within reach if you stretch a bit. That’s learning. And
then the thought occurs to you that puts the fear of God
in your bones: there are things out of your reach, (Impor-
tant things! Crucial things!) that you will never know that
you don’t know. It’s a darkness too dark to pierce.
I think one of the most odd things
about learning is the moment where
you know enough to realize how much
you don’t know.
It feels a bit like walking through a cave with a really crummy
torch. The torch gives enough light to see a couple feet in front
of you. We’re told that’s enough to get out, but I’m always left
wishing I could see a little further into the future, because I’ve
got a pretty good hunch this cave is massive. If only we could
make our torches burn a little brighter. KNOWLEDGEEDGE
KNOWLEDGE
KNOWL
“What the hel l were they doing
with a car on the moon? You’re
on the moon already! Isn’t that
far enough?”
Paradoxes are greater than the sum of their parts. If one and one is three, that last third is the conceptual leap
that connects them. It’s where insight lives, and it’s what causes my delight. It’s why Seinfeld is, and will always
be, funny. It’s why Jennifer Daniel is clever (and funny). It’s why I miss the old Simpsons. It’s about curation,
choosing wisely, and presenting an audience with something new. “Here, look at this thing you didn’t notice.”
“Here, consider this thing in a way you haven’t before.” A good paradox broadens our scope as people. It makes
us question, but I think it also allows us to accept.
The Absolute is
the concept of an
unconditional reality
which transcends
limited, conditional,
everyday existence.
it is often used as
an alternate term for
“god” or “the divine”,
especially, but by no
means exclusively, by
those who feel that the
term “god” lends itself
too easily to anthro-
pomorphic presump-
tions. the concept of
the absolute may or
may not (depending on
one’s specific d
octrine)
possess discrete will, in-
telligence, awareness or
even a personal nature. It
is sometimes conceived
of as the source through
which all being ema-
nates. It contrasts w
ith
finite things, considered
individually, and known col-
lectively as the relative.
Phenomenology’ comes from the Greek word for ‘to appear’, and the Phenomenology of Mind is
thus the study of how consciousness, or mind, appears to itself. In Hegel’s dynamic system, it is
the study of the successive appearances of the mind to itself, because on examination each one
dissolves into a later, more comprehensive and integrated form or structure of mind.”
I first read about this idea almost
two years ago, and soon after
came up with the concentric cir-
cles graphic, a much simplified
visual interpretation of how I see
Hegel’s theory operating in each
of us. When the opportunity came
to put together this exhibit, I knew
I wanted to explore Hegel’s ideas
further, and the output is simply
that: my own exploration into the
workings of human conscious-
ness, filtered by what I have read
and what I have seen and what I
have experienced, and present-
ed as such. My philosophy of art
making is the same: interpretive,
concept-based, process-oriented,
and having little to do with myself.
It is rare when I don’t think about
what it is that connects us all, though
much more apparent in my every day
is what doesn’t, or more appropriately,
what is uniquely different about each
of us. In the most simplest of things
we can find ways to argue and clash,
and these feelings are only intensified
when paired with things of more per-
sonal importance. It might be easiest
then to describe the unifying factor
in the form of the question ‘why are
we here?’ (and it’s related ideas ‘what
is real?’, ‘what does it mean to exist?’,
etc.) and how we each come to terms
with the impossibility of answering it.
But that is what we are all faced with,
the cause and not the effect. The ef-
fect, or rather, the answer to the ques-
tion, can never be the same for all of
us. Our consciousness won’t allow it.
Could there be some sort of Abso-
lute?* I think so, but it is absurd to
think that everyone will come to the
same realization at once about what it
is, or even more laughable that it will
reveal itself.
To resolve this paradox, Hegel adopts a method whereby the
knowing that is characteristic of a particular stage of conscious-
ness is evaluated using the criterion presupposed by conscious-
ness itself. At each stage, consciousness knows something, and
at the same time distinguishes the object of that knowledge as
different from what it knows. Hegel and his readers will simply
“look on” while consciousness compares its actual knowledge of
the object –what the object is “for consciousness” — with its crite-
rion for what the object must be “in itself”. One would expect that,
when consciousness finds that its knowledge does not agree with
its object, consciousness would adjust its knowledge to conform
to its object. However, in a characteristic reversal, Hegel explains
that under his method, the opposite occurs.
We live inside all experience, but we are permitted to bear witness only to the outside. Such is the riddle of life and the story of the passing of our days.”
-HOWARD THURMAN
“Well, the way of paradoxes is the way of truth. To
test reality we must see it on the tight rope. When
the verities become acrobats, we can judge them.”
—OSCAR WILDE
“I must be cruel to be kind”“I must be cruel to be kind”
However, Hamlet is speaking about his mother,
and how he plans to ultimately slay Claudius in
order to avenge his father’s death. His mother is
now married to Claudius, so of course this will
be a tragedy for her. However, he does not want
his mother to be the lover of his father’s mur-
derer (unbeknownst to her) any longer, and so
he believes the murder will be for her own good. CruelKind
Every game needs rules, and every successful frame-
work for improvisation has lim
itations. These limitations
can be internal to let the creative get to work, but can
also manifest outward to act as rules of engagement for
contributors and participants.
Limitations can be useful to help a creator or contributor
begin working in a general direction, then, use the feed-
back of the process to steer their decision making. This
is how improv theater works. Most sketches begin with a
prompt, then the actors let the momentum of the narra-
tive snowball by working off of the limitation of the prompt
and any rules the improvt game may have.
The utility of restraints is that they give the participants
common-footing, which allows them to get started. Moti-
vation doesn’t disappear, it evaporates, and this seems
crucial when a designer is either trying to get to work, or
is working to ensure their users remain engaged. One
strategy is to create a purposeful set of limitations I lik
e
to call a “pseudo-structure.” Pseudo-structures act as a
framework for creative activity and improvisation. Limita-
tions are the playground of a creative mind. They are a
latticework on which to hang ideas.
Creating these frameworks and building them on the idea of acceptance means
that there will always be an element of ambiguity in the results. But, designers
and users will become more and more accustomed to ambiguity as more of these
platforms are built, because their utility will not be obvious. As the format of con-
tribution proliferates through more of what designers make, more new, powerful
tools, devices, sites and ways to interact will not have a clear value proposition.
They can’t say “this is important because it lets you do this” or “this is the specific
reason this thing exists.”
One of the core beliefs of improv theater is the idea of “Yes, and…” meaning that
each step in an improvisational process is accepting previous contributions and is
additive in nature. Improvisation is more akin to building with clay than sculpting out
of marble: things are added and attached rather than excess being carved away.
The process is not freeing people out of blocks of marble, it is building something
out of nothing. Rejection squelches unforeseen possibilities in the interaction and
cripples participants’ desire to contribute. Frameworks for improvisation must re-
main positive and accepting.
The challenge (and potentially the art) of creating these frameworks is balancing
the inherent incongruency of some ideas that comes with setting limitations versus
trying to create an atmosphere of acceptance that maximizes potential. The art is
having participants understand that anything goes, but not everything.
Ambiguity begins to explain why Twitter is different from Facebook.
The value proposition of Facebook is clear: stay in contact with friends
and share with them. But, what’s the use of Twitter? No one can say
definitively, because there is no right way to use it. For some, it’s a
news feed, for others, it’s a way to communicate with friends, and for
others, it’s a way to keep in contact with brands.
It’s why Twitter fascinates some and beguiles others. Twitter can’t craft
a clear value proposition on their homepage to say what the site is for,
and if you are someone who needs convincing, that’s frustrating, be-
cause everyone is talking about the site. If you are observant, Twitter’s
popularity in spite of its utility ambiguity is a sign that something big is
happening on a larger scale. We are no longer building hammers with
one specific use, or even a swiss army knife that can do many differ-
ent things. What we are building is more akin to two pieces of stone,
from which someone can make their own tool for their own specific
uses: arrowhead or hand axe. The most flexible frameworks for im-
provisation will not only have improvised content, but also improvised
utility. Often times, the utility is the interaction.
One word’s personal meaning is
rooted in such an elaborate se-
quence, imagine concepts much
more complex, or much more personal
(or better, emotional). There are certainly
going to be common threads shared by any-
one, but the differences in your experience
are staggering. I won’t even go into this effect
on things such as politics, religion, and the
like, but you get the idea.
“The curious paradox is that when I accept myself just as I am, then I can change.”
—Carl R. Rogers
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY
GR
AY
GR
AY
GR
AY
GR
AY
GR
AY
GR
AY
GR
AY
GR
AY
GR
AY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
GR
AY G
RAY
Design seems to be the same way. It is about improvis-
ing (we can’t boil it down to a hard set of rules to follow).
It’s about meeting messages at a halfway point where
the creators and users overlap. Design is a platform and
cultural vessel prone to hyperbole. And it has a soft value
that is often difficult for outsiders to discern.
The primary trait of both jazz and improvisation is process.
To truly partake in it, you have to visit a place to see it in
progress. Every jazz club or improv comedy theater is a
temple to the process of production. It’s a factory, and the
art is more the assembly than the product. One could say
jazz is more verb than noun.
That makes me think that the most successful of these im-
provisational frameworks we create should be verb-based,
and focus on creating meaningful experiences, interactions
and connections. We’ll use nouns and artifacts to act as fa-
cilitators, but the real point of the exercise is the experience.
Designed frameworks can be platforms for experienc-
es. As our skills in making them mature, the basic trait
for platforms will be interaction and the basic need of
its contributors will be connection. The success of a
framework will be measured in enthusiasm. But, it
should be said that platforms and their frameworks
are not a destination, but an environment: less a
sandcastle and more a sandbox. It has been fre-
quently noted that the tools of our trade have been
democratized and everyone can access them. If we’ve
all a shovel and a pail, the sandboxes we build become
incredibly important. So, time to play.
Amusement is one of the best parts of paradoxes,
but their application is wider and more important. I
think an increased tolerance for paradox is a crucial
requirement for a person to be able to cope with the
world today. Our access to information has created
more paradoxes. We’ve made pieces of conflict-
ing information more accessible than any other
point in time. Unfortunately, we’ve mistaken
cynicism as the tool we need to cope with
this conflict of information. It seems much
more healthy to me to accept that two pieces
of contradicting information can both some
how be true. It removes that default state of
distrust, and displaces it with acknowledge-
ment, respect and insight. Things aren’t black
and white. They are gray.
WE’RE GRAY.
There’s an old joke. Two elderly women are at a Catskills mountain resort, and one of them says: “Boy, the food at this place is really terrible.” The
other one says, “Yeah, I know, and such small portions.”
“We live in an age when unnecessary things are our only necessities.”
Cameron BrownVISC 202 Selby
Fall 2012
Top Related