Thoughts on ideas

What is an idea and how do we generate ideas? To have an idea we must have a problem to solve, so how do we solve a problem? These are the questions I will aim to answer in this week’s critical reflection. I will also evaluate my own working practice and reflect on the theories and practices of others.

A dictionary definition of an idea is a thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action. I think that this gives us a clear perspective of what an idea is but how do we generate ideas and how do our minds work to do this? Neuro-scientist Dr. Henning Beck identifies that thoughts are measurable, while we can process data, in essence, data is just a series of numbers and letters. We imagine that thoughts are the result of the collection of information and how we process this. Beck goes on to suggest that we should not confuse information with an idea. We can google information but cannot do the same with an idea. It is interesting then to think of our brains as a processing tool, something that will learn from its surroundings, environments and life experiences to then make informed decisions.

In his book, Thinking fast and slow, Daniel Kahneman gives the example of a response to danger. Our primeval instincts are to learn from the things that hurt or cause danger even if, as Kahneman suggests these responses are without complete rationale. We may avoid experiences, environments or people due to a bad experience, but we may not have gained a bigger perspective to make a truly informed decision. This is just how we are wired, our limbic system in the brain is the cause of our anxiety and stress, this is the part of the brain that turns on our fight or flight response. This part of our brain can jump to conclusions and assumptions to best keep us safe, Prof. Steve Peters refers to this as our chip brain. Peters goes on to suggest that the frontal part of our brain is responsible for the human aspects of modern life. This part of our brain offers conclusions based on learned behavior and responses. The frontal makes slower more cognitive decisions, it gathers facts. The problem with this is, Peters suggests that by the time our frontal has processed information our chimp or the limbic system has already made a decision. Peters and Kahneman both seem to agree that we use our brains in this, slow and fast approach. Our learned response and the instinctive approach.

It was interesting then to compare these ideas with that of Iain Mcgilchrist. Mcgilchrist talks about our divided brain and discusses misconceptions about how we think. He suggests we do not assign particular roles to one side of the brain but rather use elements of each. He goes further to acknowledge our perceptions of the world and each part of our mind offers a different perspective. This is not to suggest Mcgilchrist denies the approach of Peters and Kahneman but he takes their ideas further and suggests that our brain is all interconnected and we make decisions that have input from multiple areas.

I believe that there are relationships between how we think and our perceptions of the world that link back to last weeks discussion. Our conscious and subconscious mind can play roles in how we perceive and think about our surroundings, this idea then would appear to combine the theories of Mcgilchrist, peters, and Kahneman with that of Sigmund Freud. Using these ideas as a basis I have been able to reflect this week about how I approach problems, specifically design problems. I have noted that I am able to sketch and draw ideas and use the double diamond approach that Susanna Edwards spoke of in this weeks lecture. I discover the problem or explore the fine details that this then enables me to really dig down into defining the problem. The graphic representation of the double diamond approach resonates with me, really throwing open the problem and gathering as much information as possible. It is the second half of this approach that I need to continue to develop in my practice. The develop and deliver stages are in need of some work and I think in part this is due to my role as a teacher I may not always have the opportunities that I so wish to really explore design ideas and develop solutions in more depth. Tom Finn of Regular practice made comment on this last week, as a practicing designer you always explore ideas and concepts, figure out what works and how to approach each job. I need to find my rhythm with this and go back to the start. Take onboard all these ideas from my studies and observations and focus in on the detail of a design. Not to rush ahead, thinking I know what I want and throw it on the screen.

 

This weeks approach was with more of a conscious effort, I had an idea and had discussed this with Kristoffer Selling of Regular Practice. I spoke about my want of investigation further to really understand a principle or an idea. Kristoffer a point that really struck home with me. Sometimes we can become too analytical and think too much about an idea, and when we make something it is easier to become disheartened by these as we have invested so much time. Kristoffer suggested that I take a pen and paper and develop an idea, see what works. After all, this is the area of my practice that I needed to work on, I need to be more decisive and yes make informed decisions but I should also listen to instincts. Feedback always works for me, how can we develop without critical feedback and reflection. As a Teacher, this should be common practice and as a Designer, we are subject to feedback and need to respond.

It was interesting listening to Paul Sahre in conversation with Debbie Milman on the podcast Design Matters, he spoke about how he would and has on a regular basis said no to clients and refused to work in a certain way. There is part of this that allows Sahre to do this, he is a well-established designer and has a wealth of knowledge and a list of respectable clients, I’m not so sure a small studio or freelancer would be in the same position to be as privileged to turn down work. But there has to be a point in our working practice that we believe in a project, it has meaning and adds value to our work.

“Never fall in love with an idea. They’re whores: if the one you’re with isn’t doing the job, there’s always, always, always another.” Chipp Kidd. 

Reflecting on the feedback from previous weeks, conversations this week with Stuart Tolly from Transmission and Kristoffer Selling of Regular Practice, I had been inspired to investigate the workings of a designer, engineer and a pioneer that was highlighted in a Ted talk about Design Thinking. Isambard Kingdom Brunel was a pioneer in the development of British railways, bridges and industrial infrastructure. A conversation with Selling leads us onto the typefaces of the London Underground, Johnson and Gill. This made me think of Brunel and his obsession with drawing the perfect circle. Selling and I discussed outcomes and concluded that for this weeks workshop challenge I would aim to develop, or at least present a drawing of a typeface that is inspired by this idea of a perfect circle.

Thinking of my working practice, I had decided to focus on the design, I had a concept and would explore the idea of using pen and paper. No more research into type or how Johnson and Gill worked, or how they had developed their ideas. I had to work on my intuition and reflect on this week’s themes, what I had already learned, conversations that had influenced my work. Without realising I had already discovered and defined the parameters of this challenge, I was now left with developing and delivering the outcome.  My initial drawings seem to come easy, I had made a set of rules to follow, it was only a case of discovering how each letter form would follow these rules. My initial response was a sans serif type style that has even thickness of the strokes. This I could reflect on the railways of Brunel and his obsession with perfect lines, flat and smooth to ensure a speedy comfortable ride. So I had one idea and it seemed to work, I should develop this further and explore other options. And as Stolling suggested we need to go forward and back to really see that something works and fits a brief. The more we do this, the easier things will come in later projects.

Through this investigation, I have been conscious of my working practice and had reflected on ideas suggested on the Ideas wall. It was commented that taking breaks away from the screen and a change in location can help gain a new perspective on our ideas. So, this is exactly what I did. I took my dog, sketchbook, and pen to the beach and sat thinking about the principles of what I wanted to focus on through this workshop challenge. I wanted to develop my practice, allow myself time to develop an idea and present a complete design that I am happy with. I think that I will continue to develop this concept, taking on feedback from Regular Practice and Transmission, these changes may be subtle, like exploring the weight of the type but also adding serifs and more embellishments. At the moment the style of the type is sticking rigidly to the idea of a perfect circle and long straight lines with even weight.

This exercise has enabled me to focus on my practice and made conscious decisions based on feedback, I have focused less on the research and the define stages of the double diamond and have spent more time focusing in on the development and delivery stages. These are areas I feel I can improve on and I have been able to do this thought my type experiments. While I have focused less on the discover stages, I have spent a large proportion of this weeks challenge, and previous challenges in the discover and define stages. This has truly helped inform ideas but I believe I need to know when to cut off this stage and realise that I have sufficient information to continue with the project. In this instance It was the nudge from Kristoffer that made me realise, I do have enough information and am able to develop an idea. So, I have explored a concept, developed an idea and looked although very briefly at adding thick and thin strokes to the type. I believe that this could be developed into a Serif typeface but I am working on my intuition and suggesting that for now, I am happy with the style and outcome of the type. I have enjoyed working to such a rigid structure and embraced the process of making each letter fit this. I would continue to work on this and complete the full set and experiment digitally with the outcome. For now, as a typeface that holds its principles with Brunel, perfect circles and long straight lines I am happy with this process and have reflected that I need to cut down my time researching and defining the project, sometimes we need to work on the hunch and develop that. I may need to go back and explore further research or define the project in other ways but I should aim to spend more time designing and exploring options. Using pen and paper to get initial ideas down has been a big part of this challenge. Most of my time has been spent sketching out the design and structure and have just used Illustrator as a tool to deliver the end outcome.

I walked away from this feeling happy with my outcome and with the concept I had developed. I come back from a walk with the dog, looked at the type again, added some weight and thought. I know that font. Bloomingdale’s department store. Ah okay. Maybe I need to head back to the development stages. But I enjoyed the process.