concept
The second of our threshold concepts was ‘collide.’ We defined this as exploring the visual possibilities of combining unexpected objects and ideas. Central to this idea is how change in form creates a change in meaning. By ‘colliding’ things with existing meanings, we can write new ones.
application
We see this as an idea that can be applied very broadly in practice but to give it some application we focussed on icons, using theme of collide to explore the ways that iconic signs communicate. Therefore, our focus for the feedback in the sessions is on the difference between monosemic and polysemic communication. Giving students a framework for making informed judgements about how work is communicating.
process
We are using time constraints as a working method to encourage speed, experimentation and play. We are also making the process iterative, so students have the opportunity to generate many ideas but refine and iterate one.
#1 / Introduce
Student responses here were interesting. What came through was that students seemed to have a tacit understanding of semiotic theory but couldn’t put names to those ideas, and so, they were quite shy about sharing them. We expected this.
#2 / Warm up
The warm up is an idea we use in our workshops. It’s a quick intro task that gets the students making straight away. It’s designed as an entry into the concept. The warm up is usually a time-constrained activity aimed at getting the students to make something without too much pre-thought or planning.
As Sister Corita Kent says in her 10 Rules for Students, Teachers, and Life, “Don’t Make and Analyze at the Same Time, They’re Different Processes.’ [Popova, 2016]
Finding new meanings
Here, the students different levels of understanding really started to show as they had real examples to discuss. They started to realise firstly that there was no ‘right answer.’ Secondly that the meaning was often shifted in the reading by the viewer. This was an important way to illustrate the idea that designs are not static objects, things that spectators passively observe without influence. They represent an interplay between design and spectator as a form of knowing and understanding [Vilhauer, 2010].
“The process of sharing and guessing meanings between classmates was very interesting. Others discovered meanings I hadn’t been aware of when I was working on it. This made me realise that sometimes the interpretation of the audience is a supplement to the work, and their feedback can be kind of re-creation of it.” — Hao
“In the discussion sessions it was very interesting to hear how other students interpreted the meanings of the icons. People’s views are so diverse and I get to appreciate the value of testing a design with others” — Snigdha
“I think that I will approach briefs with from a new perspective, especially when I am given sets of information or images. I will play around with what I am given to see if I can discover a new meaning or message or a more interesting way of expressing a message though the collision process” — Sabrina
#2 / Experiment
Naming
In the feedback section we asked the students to give names to the icons. This was partly successful however it caused anxiety for the students who struggled with English. The short timeframe they had to find those words meant, in reality, they named very few. I probably wouldn’t do this again with a similar group.
Simplifying
Many of the conversations in the feedback section focussed on simplifying the visual display. Some were very busy and looked more like illustrations than icons. We asked them to consider what they might remove or take away without sacrificing the communication.
“One of the most important conclusions I drew from this workshop, is that icons do not have to be very elaborate to be comprehensible. When comparing the feedback received for my icons, it turned out that an icon only works because it is reduced to the minimum. As soon as more information is added, it evolves into a “story”and becomes more open to interpretation. — Nora
“I will always remember to de-clutter and leave some mystery for the viewer to solve.” — Sharanya
Constraints
The main activities were all time-constrained. A factor that some students found quite stressful. They became convinced that with more time, they would do a ‘better’ job. So as an experiment we gave them one go with a longer time frame. Students found this actually made it harder.
“Most fellow students thought if we can have more time, we can do better than before, so the tutors let us have more time to think. But the longer time was not really helpful, you don’t really get much of an improvements in the design” — Ran
“Many times I do think too much and things stagnate. I need to do things and see what happens, instead of thinking too much and doing nothing” — Snigdha
#3 / Refine
Criteria
What was clear in the final round of feedback was that students were using success criteria clearly in discussions about the outcomes. They could have quite clear discussions about why things were working and why they weren’t or how they might be refined. Conversations here were noticeably less about value judgments and more about function.
“I’ve done my fair share of design projects, but not once did I try and figure out a clear structure. I’ve just always followed my instinct, or what felt right to me. This workshop made me go back to every project I’ve done to think if there was a better and clearer way to do them” — Ran
Process
When we asked the students what they thought about the workshop process, they had a lot of things to say about the value of experimentation and a generative approach.
“I now understand experiments also really important process for a designer. Sometimes designers need to do a lot of experiments” —Nahmee
“When faced with bottlenecks in creation, it may be helpful to try new ways of working courageously, such as shortening the time of creation, or even letting yourself lose the planned time, randomly trying without setting outcomes previously. These creative methods are very inspiring for me” —Hao Lu
Personal reflection on the session
The method again felt very clear in this session. It was the first time we’d used such short activities and it was a tough sell at first. It felt like pulling teeth getting the students to commit to the timeframes. I found myself doing a lot of walking around, telling people to stop and move on. I felt like a bully. However, when the process started to generate results, they sort of submitted. It’s a great reminder that sometimes you have to sell the process!
Once again, I felt like the students understanding developed better through the group discussions than by us explaining things. By the end, we were really just facilitators of the discussion rather than leaders of it. Which is the preferred approach.
The room set up again just felt really cramped and I felt that the student anxiety about the time frames might well have been exacerbated by the cramped space. I was doing a lot of running around clearing up the waste paper and mess. Not a problem, but I was less available for other support.
References
Popova, M. (2016) 10 Rules for Students, Teachers, and Life by John Cage and Sister Corita Kent. Available at: URL (Accessed: 19 Feb 2019).
Vilhauer, M. (2010). Gadamer’s ethics of play. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, pp.31-48.