August 2020

There were 2 posts published in August 2020 (this is page 1 of 1).

Reflection – “Disneyland with the Death Penalty” by William Gibson

Gibson starts off the article by comparing Singapore to VR. “VR would never look real until they learned how to put some dirt in it”. It’s hard to relate VR to actual reality as the illusion created is simply too perfect, just like how people paint the picture of Singapore. It’s too good to be true (aka Disneyland). But at the same time, we are being governed so strictly that any mistake could ruin our lives, hence, Singapore is Disneyland with the death penalty.

He went on to summarise the success of the People Action Party and how the late Lee Kuan Yew managed to evolve Singapore from a colonial trading port to a bustling metropolitan city today. Over the decades, the government has been trying to curate the “perfect experience” for all Singaporeans. A harmonious multiracial society that enjoys great prosperity, wonderful facilities, and a bright future.

However, the government failed to identify and work on the “pain points” of this experience. We have failed and neglected the minorities of the country which is why Gibson finds Singapore a cold and heartless place. He quotes “The word infrastructure takes on a new and claustrophobic resonance here; somehow it’s all infrastructure.” Singapore places too much emphasis on economical growth, forgoing societal and cultural growth.

Gibson feels that it’s indeed a perfect living experience – a reliable transportation system, an abundance of recreational and health facilities, low crime rates, and so on. What more can you ask for? However, this experience is defined by the government and not the citizens. Just like any consumer, Gibson had a bad experience and went off finding his next perfect experience. This reminds us not to be influenced by our own biases when designing and to always consider the perspectives of all stakeholders.

Reflection – “The Beautiful And The Nice” by Vilém Flusser

In “The Beautiful And The Nice”, Vilem Flusser talks about how concrete experiences cannot be communicated clearly and how we are all artists trying to create an experience through patterns to make “reality richer”.

Everybody goes through the same experiences but we see and interpret it differently. Flusser mentions the this is due to how we are being conditioned “naturally” and “culturally”. Natural conditions consist of physical, chemical, and physiological factors that we are born with while Cultural conditions are affected by the way we are brought up and taught to do things. He gave the example of the experience of “love between a man and a woman”. It is natural for one person to experience love for another but the way we express our love is not universal and is affected by our own culture.

Flusser also mentioned how individuals have unique experiences because of the way we are programmed – our genetic and aesthetic program, which affects our preferences for a group, thing, or feeling when compared to another. This “aesthetic program” is art. Artists use their past experiences and propose structures, forms, and patterns to form a future experience. I resonate with what he said – films, musicals, exhibitions recreate the pleasant feelings and ideas through artistic forms that are based on the artist’s past experiences. Hence, making reality richer. Beautiful art enhances the past experiences. As pleasant memories of past experiences start to fade, art like paintings and photographs are able to evoke the emotions that we felt at that moment.

There isn’t a definite way to explain or replicate experiences but we try to model them based on our definition of beauty. However, in our pursuit of creating a beautiful experience, we must not let it affect our perception of the real world and tweak these experiences to create a “perfect” experience. Flusser ended off the article mentioned that “The artist’s problem is to walk the narrow path between banality and redundancy”.

As designers, this is extremely applicable as we constantly have to weigh our options and decide which is a better way to communicate information and experience effectively. The main challenge is to create the perfect “model of concrete experience”. As mentioned, everyone experiences the same event differently, hence, how can we ensure that the model we came out with is the most relevant and relatable model? In many instances, there isn’t a one size fits all solution. It is impossible to design a product that would fit in all instances, that works for everybody. Our cultural differences have shaped our experiences to a large extent, a simple example would be walking and how people of different cultures keep to different sides of the road. Hence, there are many factors that we have to weigh when designing and the only way to find out these factors get out there and observe and make genuine conversations.

When designing, “experience” is not something that is discussed very commonly as compared to “functionality”. There is a heavier emphasis placed on how well the product can work compared to how the user feels when using the product. This is exactly the “Mozart” and “Dante” situation raised by Flusser. I hope to be able to define and create better “experiences” at the end of this course.