Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Week Three Posts

Here are the rules for the weekly response papers. You must post 250-500 words each week by 1PM Thursday. By the following Thursday at 1PM, you must post a response of at least a few sentences to another posting (50 words). And you must post your new post, both by 1PM.

24 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As I flipped through the beginning of Massive Change by Bruce Mau, the pictures and quotations that were featured startled me. The various photographs display these moments in time where design had actually faltered by circumstances that are uncontrollable. It almost felt that these moments in time were potentially “fake” because in my opinion, they are so unreal to the daily life. It took me a moment to focus in on the words and the real issues at hand. Naturally, society takes for granted that design can actually fail and that we are prone to believing that design is more “work” than actually an art form or something to be amazed at.
    After I browsed through the pictures, I began reading through the first section. What really stood out to me from these brief few pages was the section titled “We will distribute capacity”. I completely agree with what Mau is presenting. We need no longer look at the designers to blame, but look at the clients who are also at fault. Essentially, we need to look at society collectively (both designer and client) to answer the dilemmas that we are faced with.
    Overall, I think Mau has brought up an issue that needs to be addressed. When a dilemma is presented, normally society shifts focus to the person who created the problem or the actual object itself. However, no one ever looks to whoever participated in the problem, which sometimes can amass to thousands or millions. We need to now look at the people who contribute not just the inventors or designers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. One of the most overt points I felt was made in the opening passages of our text Cradle to Cradle was the connection between economic progress and cradle to grave design. That being the idea that economic progress is solely measured by gross domestic product and economic output, but not by the well being of the citizens. Developing nations and industrialized countries alike all strive for better economic progress, yet don’t fully understand what it truly means to move forward. The authors, McDonough and Braungart, use the industrial revolution as the backbone of their argument for a consideration of the whole and not just economic indicators. Personally, I found the comparison between economic progress and unidentified externalities to be more blurred than the authors suggest. Their interpretation of the foundation of Ford Motor Company and the revolutionized production process highlights important factors regarding the deadly toxins emitted in the production process. I find that the most important question to ask is one of net benefits for society: are the gains realized by a streamlined production process and a more efficient industrial process outweighing the harmful toxins that caused many to die during the time period? Furthermore, could those economic gains be achieved without the harmful byproduct of smog and pollution? Additionally, the authors do a great job bringing forward all the negative impacts associated with the Exxon Valdez oil spill in the 90’s, as well as the evaluation of economic activity during that time frame. I found it egregious that indicators would consider that a time of economic prosperity when clearly the Alaskan citizens and wildlife as a whole were adversely affected by this event. I think this instance sheds light on an even greater issue at hand: how to calculate economic prosperity, not only on an individual or per capita basis, but taking into consideration the surroundings and environment of the economy in question. Externalities such as oil spills, deathly airborne byproducts of manufacturing, and harmful chemicals must be taken into account when evaluating true progress. If this is not addressed newly industrialized economies will fall into the same trap that spurred America’s cradle to grave consumerism. I also believe the authors did a fantastic job setting up the premise of the book and explaining how cradle to grave production and consumption has caused such an inefficient mode of living, and how actions need to be taken to avoid downcycling products, in turn using more energy and more resources. American’s and western society as a whole should not be falsely informed about the effects of buying and using recycled products. Energy conversation is of utmost importance and the search for a renewable source of energy is still underway. During which time we must take the necessary actions, both academically and physically, to inform citizens and put current education and knowledge to use.

    -Will

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rachel Markel
    After reading chapter two in “Cradle to Cradle,” I felt like everything I have been taught in the past has been a complete waste. My family has been recycling from before I can remember. It is also all over DePaul’s campus. New recycling bins are spotted on every floor of the student center, every classroom, and even in the dorms. I read that recycling plastic, metal, and paper could almost be more hazardous instead of helpful to the environment. When a person would recycle metal from an old car, the metal would be down-cycled into a weaker metal. Doing this lower the steel’s quality and it can never be able to be made into a new car again.
    During the process of recycling paper, chemicals and bleach must be added to restore the original color so it can be used again. The result is a paper covered in chemicals and in some cases, toxic inks that are handled. Recycled papers can cause irritation to the nasal passage. Some people become allergic to newspapers because they are made from down-cycled paper. Part of me believes that, yes, papers with chemicals are bad for the people handling them, and for the environment, but on the other hand I don’t know a lot about this topic and I just wonder if the “recycling could be worse than not” area of the book is just an over exaggeration. I just wonder how everyone has always been told to recycle and avoid landfills, but now it is almost reversed. Maybe I just need to learn more about this whole topic in general.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Senior year in high school, I took AP Environmental Science. I was so into it that when I started at DePaul I was an Environmental Science major. I remember the movies that we had to watch, the articles we had to read. The imagery and facts will forever be ingrained in my mind. All of these facts, which are merely grim trivia to me now, came rushing back when I started reading Cradle to Cradle.
    Phthalates, yuck. Endocrine disrupters, don’t get me started. Ideas about energy conservation that seem dated now. What happens to what we throw away. That poisonous brand new carpet you just bought. Dioxins’ effects; pesticides; our impact on the environment. It’s all so intriguing, so unknown to most people. I don’t mean to be pessimistic, but I will be. We are completely unaware of what we’re doing, what we’re buying, what we’re eating.
    At the same time, I’m no activist. I’m jaded as hell. I don’t have the money to buy organic (like that even means anything), I don’t have the time to figure out what exactly I should and should not be doing, and frankly I don’t think that I can personally make a difference alone.
    One of my favorite TV shows is Penn and Teller’s Bullshit. Please, watch it. It’s good, I swear. Penn and Teller, the magicians, expel everything you thought you knew about everything. This includes recycling, hybrid cars, and PETA. The recycling episode is incredibly interesting, though biased I’m sure.
    When I moved to Chicago, I looked into recycling. Information about blue bags was still online, and that program doesn’t even exist anymore. The only thing I could find was that I could transport my recyclable materials to one of maybe 10 recycling centers in the city. Seriously? This summer, I came home one day to find two blue recycling bins in my backyard. Cool, I guess. Still jaded. I occasionally recycled. But why? It made me feel good. I honestly think that’s why most people separate their recyclables and put it in a different bin. They feel like they’re doing something good, like they’re making a difference. Are they?
    I’m all about questioning things, ideas, and preconceptions. I want to think about things in ways that they aren’t traditionally thought about. I want to challenge other people to do the same. Maybe that’s my little form of activism, even if it is watered down. Don’t just not think; learn. That’s why we’re in college, even if it is DePaul University.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rebecca Zak
    From even the first couple of weeks in the class, it seems like a main point that keeps being repeated is that design and the environment are always working together. As Paul Scheerbert states in his GlassArchitecture piece, “If we want our culture to rise to a higher level, we are obliged, for better or worse, to change our architecture.” I think it is really interesting his idea of making glass architecture. I like the idea that windows connect the inside with the outside, so if all of the building was windows people would feel much closer to their environment. I agree with these ideas, I do feel like rooms without windows and with only artificial light feel much lonlier and a more negative vibe while rooms with a lot of natural light feel more uplifting and positive energy. Similarily when the weather is dreary, it seems that everything is going wrong, while on beautiful sunny days, people feel great! Although I’ve been a design student for three years this is a new subject having to do with design for me.
    In Bruce Mau’s Massive Change he states “even life itself has fallen (or is falling) to the power and possibility of design.” It has now become very apparent to me that design is everywhere we look, and as Mau also stated, design does not become visable until it has failed. I feel as though lately my eyes have been opening more and more to what design is out there, as it literally is everywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Elliot Pence
    While learning all this information is interesting I’m really just wondering how it is actually going to affect anything. Watching the old videos of Buckminster Fuller it shows how he came up with solutions to a lot of the problems we are facing today. However none of these designs like the self-sustaining house or his dymaxion car are integrated into our society. People are still building mansions and driving hummers, so I guess its just hard for me to believe that there is a realistic shot of changing everything or enough so that we get off the track of the impending doom that everyone says we are on. I would like to see change and if I could be a part of it that would be great but it just seems like everything has to happen on a massive scale at the same time to see any results that it just seems somewhat unrealistic.
    One thing that did shock me from Massive Change was in the Michael McDonough article when he said, “New York City is one of the most environmentally efficient cities on the surface of the planet because of its density.” When I imagine cities one of the first things that comes to mind is pollution, but I never thought of density as being energy efficient. It makes sense though if everything is tightly packed the surrounding areas can remain undeveloped.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sarah Neurauter
    In beginning to read the book Cradle to Cradle, by William McDonough and Michael Braungart, the main argument that I identify with is the labeling of so called “green” green products. It’s not common to hear that a person is remodeling their kitchen so it is greener, or replacing their windows with more energy efficient ones. The problem that I’ve seen within a society where everything needs to be replaced in order to be eco-friendly is that in doing so, most of the time, more waste is created. McDonough and Braungart mention how a recycled carpet has been invented, but the energy that goes into creating the flooring is actually more intensive then it was to create the original material. And furthermore how it is nearly impossible to recycle the product once it has been deemed unusable or replaceable.

    The thought of never really being able to create an eco-friendly product troubled me because it made me wonder if there is any hope for a green initiative. However, I was also intrigued by McDonough and Braungart’s notion of what it really means to be eco-friendly. To create products that would leave no footprint would radically change the way humans have been operating and interacting with the earth since the industrial revolution. As a graphic designer it is interesting to think about a world where everything eventually is returned to the earth.

    It is obvious that all design is not created in a vacuum; rather design is a product of social, political and economic climates. For example, when looking at graphic design over the past five or ten years you can already see a shift away from ornamental and deconstructive look towards a more modern and universal design style. One recent re-design that comes to mind to illustrate this point is the Pepsi logo, where the designers managed to simplify an already classic design. It would be compelling to see how a new type of green revolution would affect design.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ilana Federman
    The message conveyed in 'Cradle to Cradle', along with a few other books I have been reading including 'Ishmael' and 'The Story of B', both by Daniel Quinn, as well as 'Against the Grain' by Richard Manning have promted me to adopt a new mantra: "If it isn't good in the first place, it shouldn't exist." The trick, of course, is defining "good" but 'Cradle to Cradle' is helping me to do just that. In regards to recycling, which they define as "downcycling" since the quality of the product is diminished over time, one could assume that recycling doesn't work because it's not "good" enough (perhaps a sentiment that Dolores' brother would agree with). I think that is missing the point. It's not that recycling isn't useful, it's that it's not productive under our current circumstances. As long as materials and products are made/produced/designed that prevent easy and efficient methods of recycling, we are still hampsters on a wheel, producing "less bad" things that we will dispose of in a "less bad" manner. I was pleased at McDonough and Braungart's assessment of the limitations of regulation. While I believe in limited regulation since they can be powerful reflections of the values of a society, they are primarily symbolic. Ultimately if there is a profit to be made, a business will find a way around regulations. There is a very relevant quote from 'The Story of B' that discusses the limitations of regulations (what Quinn broadly calls 'programs'): "Programs invariably run counter to vision, and so have to be thrust on people - have to be 'sold' to people. For example, if you want people to live simply, reduce consumption, reuse, and recycle, you must create programs that encourage such behaviors. But if you want them to consume a lot and waste a lot, you don't need to create programs of encouragement, because these behaviors are supported by our cultural vision." (49) Once again, I believe regulation, along with recycling, acts as a bandaid to slow the bleeding (which is better than nothing), but these are clearly not going to be enough to change how our culture relates to the natural world (of which we sometimes forget we are a part of). At the risk of being redundant, we need a new vision.

    ReplyDelete
  10. These first two chapters of Cradle to Cradle might be more enjoyable if the authors did not rely on fear tactics to get their point across. Were I not an “environmentalist” who was already familiar with many of the topics they have discussed thus far, I would probably be very turned off. I do believe that their points are valuable and very important, but I feel like this is not a book that could reach the masses (which is who (I believe) the intended audience ought to be). I feel like this is a problem characteristic of environmental writers in general. There is obviously an urgent need for a societal overhaul but the people in the best position to communicate this are ill-equipped for the job. More people need to understand that simply recycling things is only a band-aid for larger problems, and they need to be told about the potential hazards of using recycled materials, etc., which Mc Donough and Braungart are clearly well-versed in, but there is a difference between education and bullying. Bullying will get the movement nowhere fast, only bringing more critics and less action. I am not advocating for these notions to be “dumbed-down”, just for them to be presented in a less negative light, one that gives the reader a feeling of hope, instead of hopelessness.
    On a brighter note, I felt that Jim Montgomery did (and is doing) an excellent job at bringing sustainability issues to light here at DePaul. By teaching courses that allow students to decide for themselves what is important and what is possible really opens their minds up to what sustainable practices might look like. The “Twenty 12” movement that he spoke of seemed like it will have great potential to draw in students and faculty alike, recognizing that there must be an allied effort in order for such a plan to work. I think that while his plan to get a big screen television to show energy use might seem flashy and unnecessary to some, it is just what is needed to reach so many more. I think that William McDonough and Michael Braungart could perhaps learn a lesson in effective presentation from Dr. Montgomery. -Erin Weber

    ReplyDelete
  11. Adam Rosenquist
    In Cradle to Cradle, the author talks about the idea that rather than reducing our consumption of things, we should instead create new ways of conserving that wont have any affects on the environment. For years, I’ve been hearing reduce, reuse, recycle, and though this may help limit our environmental problems, the truth is that it is only going to slow it down so that our children have to deal with it. When I heard about changing the way we go about the environmental dilemma facing us, I thought of the change that could help in fixing it. I never thought about how products that were made for only a certain lifespan in order to keep getting consumers to buy more. The economic system we have set up seems to be destroying the earth. If products were made to last for longer life spans, and that after these spans had passed the product could be either recycled back into the system or decomposed so as to not harm the earth, there would be almost zero harmful affect on the earth. The idea that we should learn from nature, such as ants and their ability to sustain a very industrial way of life with no harm to the earth, seems extremely uplifting to me. This idea may seem farfetched since people are so set in their ways, but I think the idea of this class, environmental design, can help in slowly changing people’s ideas and ways of living. If we can design things that are just as convenient as what people have now but with little to no environmental harm, the future of the environment and its creatures could very well be saved.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Meredith Van Acker
    Design to me has always been at the backdrop of events. Until reading the past weeks pieces, I would not focus my attention or criticize current designs unless they were posing as an installation or within gallery spaces. However, it seems that design should not be appreciated for its contributions only when its within the walls of a museum or has a plaque nailed to it. Just as those artistic displays are crucial for culture and in maintaining a political and social voice, ecological and environmental design are important for our future towards sustainability.
    In Cradle and Cradle McDonough and Braungart touch on our “culture of monoculture” which I thought to be very important in developing and planning for the future of cities. It does not make sense, nor does it work, to take the same layout for a home in northern Michigan and build it in South Carolina, for example. By ignoring the external environment when building there is no way to utilize the surrounding resources and geography. The concept of sustainability is ignored and therefore energy efficiency for that house is most likely low. Overall, as we continue to expand our urban centers we need to build with the outdoors in mind first. How can we make full use of the location in terms of solar heating and insulation? What kind of protection does the structure need from extreme weather events and can the surrounding environment aid in providing that? Cities across the country are beginning to look more and more alike and history is being lost by the implementation of universal design.
    I believe that globalization has aided significantly in the widespread use of universal design and it saddens me. I don’t want to travel across the world to find a place similar to somewhere I could drive a few hours to back in the United States. I think culture is so unique and offers so many learning opportunities that the merging and conforming of cultures could take us quicker into environmental catastrophes. As was reinforced by our more recent speaker, Elizabeth Millan, the environment affects our behavior and mirrors our culture. If humans are beginning to be surrounded by the same, or similar, built environment how will this affect our ideas and cultural growth?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Meredith Van Acker
    Design to me has always been at the backdrop of events. Until reading the past weeks pieces, I would not focus my attention or criticize current designs unless they were posing as an installation or within gallery spaces. However, it seems that design should not be appreciated for its contributions only when its within the walls of a museum or has a plaque nailed to it. Just as those artistic displays are crucial for culture and in maintaining a political and social voice, ecological and environmental design are important for our future towards sustainability.
    In Cradle and Cradle McDonough and Braungart touch on our “culture of monoculture” which I thought to be very important in developing and planning for the future of cities. It does not make sense, nor does it work, to take the same layout for a home in northern Michigan and build it in South Carolina, for example. By ignoring the external environment when building there is no way to utilize the surrounding resources and geography. The concept of sustainability is ignored and therefore energy efficiency for that house is most likely low. Overall, as we continue to expand our urban centers we need to build with the outdoors in mind first. How can we make full use of the location in terms of solar heating and insulation? What kind of protection does the structure need from extreme weather events and can the surrounding environment aid in providing that? Cities across the country are beginning to look more and more alike and history is being lost by the implementation of universal design.
    I believe that globalization has aided significantly in the widespread use of universal design and it saddens me. I don’t want to travel across the world to find a place similar to somewhere I could drive a few hours to back in the United States. I think culture is so unique and offers so many learning opportunities that the merging and conforming of cultures could take us quicker into environmental catastrophes. As was reinforced by our more recent speaker, Elizabeth Millan, the environment affects our behavior and mirrors our culture. If humans are beginning to be surrounded by the same, or similar, built environment how will this affect our ideas and cultural growth?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I thought that it was very interesting to have the speakers come to class. They really opened up on a conversation that I have had on my mind for awhile.
    Though I did not agree with everything in Glass Architecture, I thought it raised some really good points. If we did change the architecture around us, would it in turn have an effect on our worldviews and the way that we live our life? Instead of the idea that building with glass will change our culture, why not consider incorporating more plants and nature into our architecture? When people feel more connected to nature, they are more likely to personally invest in it and it’s future.
    The first speaker brought up an interesting question, did culture bring about architecture or vice versa? That is like asking which came first, the chicken or the egg. Culture and architecture are always bouncing off one another, changing and adapting. By changing our architecture, it will have an affect on our culture but we cannot let this change become stagnant and unresponsive. Our architecture needs to be adaptive and malleable with time and change. If we do not think of way that our architecture can become adaptive, we will have fallen victim once again to our current predicament. We are now in a post industrial age and people are seeking “greener” ways of living but that is so hard when everything we have build around us is so permanent.
    There is no way that changing our architecture can come about suddenly, but needs to come on gradually such as with the environmental movement happening at DePaul. I was not aware that DePaul was working on greener buildings and environmental courses of study. To incorporate sustainable beliefs and practices into everything in life is our only hope. McGowan is a good example of how our architecture can change our culture. It is along the same ideas proposed in Glass Architecture but without the glass. Creating a more environmentally conscious building will have impacts, consciously or subconsciously, on those in and around the building.
    If we blend the ideas of sustainability along with ideas of architecture playing a role in our psyche then we will be able to change or start to change our culture.-Kyla Saah

    ReplyDelete
  15. Katie Schwartz
    Although we have done much damage to our earth, I believe that in order for any change to occur in how our society regards and uses the environment, we need to remain optimistic. I do realize that the current issues are extremely complex and seem to be boundless, however, we cannot just decide that there are too many concerns to address and refrain from even attempting to save our earth. Therefore, we must begin locally. Which is probably why I really enjoyed reading “DePaul as a Sustainable Learning Community” because I agreed with many of the beliefs that were shared within the text. I really liked the idea of entering an “age of sustainability” and completely leaving behind the current “age of exploitation and domination” because I think that one of our society’s main problems is the mentality that we [humans] are somehow superior to the earth and all of it’s other inhabitants. Therefore we have no problem with exploiting/abusing all of the earth’s precious resources and wildlife. If we viewed ourselves as one with the earth, we would probably have more empathy and respect for it. We need to be just as concerned for it’s wellbeing as we would be for another human. We need to begin practicing “patterns of collective life” and develop environmentally friendly “habits of mind and practice, as stated in the reading. I also really enjoyed this reading because I felt that the majority of the strategic recommendations were feasible and would be extremely beneficial, such as having a Director of Sustainability for DePaul. To have someone in charge, organizing, and representing would make this effort of transforming DePaul into a sustainable community a lot easier on all of. I also really liked the idea of encouraging professors, regardless of their department or the course(s) they teach, to be the leaders in environmentally friendly behaviors and practices in order to inform and guide their students.

    ReplyDelete
  16. My favorite page in Massive Change is the map of the internet—as the number of links between websites increase, so do the interdependencies between web pages. We think of most websites these days as being dependent on Google’s code, Google’s mail servers, Google’s web hosting, Google’s web spiders. Google, Yahoo, and Facebook seem to be the three main hubs from which all internet activity radiates and to which it ultimately returns. This is the nature of “web 2.0:” nothing exists independently on the internet; there are fewer and fewer portals from real-life, traditional 20th century advertising to individual websites. I think Mau thought that was cool (a good model for cities and people) but I think it’s a little scary.

    Ultimately, the big shift in design consciousness is away from (input-output) functions and towards resilient self-regulating cycles. I can compare this to the way that the internet seems to take on a life of its own, but it also seems dangerous for anything to be TOO interconnected. The more interconnected a system is, the more organized, the closer it is to becoming an organism. If you damage one part of an organism, you need to use the entire system to recuperate. The basis of life is variety, innovation(genetic mutation), change, speciation, and even death! The authors of Cradle-to-Cradle mentioned the cannibalistic death rituals of the Yanomamo as an effective way of cycling nutrients. I think if Americans became able to accept death as a form of change and growth, we would be a lot closer to genuinely accepting of any kind of “green revolution.”

    ReplyDelete
  17. Jake Hartle


    Glass Architecture

    I agree with the overall concept of glass architecture, being able to enjoy the light and the aesthetic pleasure from the stars, the moon, sun and nature. But this concept seems more rural than urban. If all the houses/apartment buildings in an urban area were glass, the only thing you would see is another glass house. Unless of course, you were on the top floor, than perhaps you would see a couple of stars that were not blocked or occluded by smog and light pollution. The next problem would be keeping the glass clean- and if the whole house is made of glass, that is a lot of eco-friendly glass cleaner. I think that most people would keep their shades shut so their neighbors didn’t spy on them or feel that their privacy was being invaded.
    I also wonder how sustainable a glass house would be. Unfortunately, I didn’t find a glass recipe form what I would believe to be from a creditable source, but this one should give you an idea of what it takes to make a ton of glass.
    The Recipe for 1 Ton of Glass (Resources)
    1300 Pounds Sand
    400 Pound Soda Ash
    400 Pounds Limestone
    150 Pounds Feldspar
    24000 Gallons Water
    4400 KWH of Energy
    www.physorg.com/news156506896.html

    I can’t imagine how much glass it would take to build a house where each side has two, 6inch thick walls. The amount of water alone would be devastating to the local environment of the factory. Not to mention all of the energy it would take to mine the materials and then produce the glass. I do admit that I do not know how much energy, water, and material it takes to make a ton of concrete (it may be comparable) but it seems it would take more tons of glass/iron to build a house than concrete or brick.
    Personally I would like to live in a glass house; I think glass would help the psyche of the human race. With that said, a future glass house community would have to be more of a suburban type of place. The community would have to be designed with nature as a main focus. Where the back yard of each house would be a park with personal and communal gardens, the community will have to be self efficient or be able to trade with other local communities. Unfortunately ,this seems unrealistic or maybe even cult-like. Once again I like the idea of glass houses but I don’t know how practical they would be.
    These are just the question that came to me while reading the paper after more research I may change my mind.

    ReplyDelete
  18. (Kate Marolt)

    One of the first things I noticed about the book 'Cradle to Cradle' is the fact that it was written in 2002, and here we are, almost eight years later, and it doesn't seem like much progress has been made. Even with the 'paper' used for the book- is there a reason I have never seen another book with this kind of material for the pages?

    The chapter 'Why being 'less bad' is no good' was very eye opening to me in several ways. While I have been vaguely aware that our entire system and infrastructure is not designed to be renewable and sustainable, I have never really critically thought about what it would be like if the entire system were different. For example, the idea that eco-efficiency may actually be more destructive in the long run is interesting, because it shows that while we as humans are willing to adapt and accept certain things, we are very resistant as a whole to actual, from the ground->up change.

    This chapter also made me think about recycling (downcycling) in a new way. Though I was aware of the fact that there are arguments against recycling as we practice it today, I never really understood it in a concrete, scientific breakdown of the materials sort of way. The fact that this 're-cycling' may actually be more harmful to the environment bothers me, because the way the book lays it out it seems like such a simple solution: create products that are meant to be re-cycled. I realize that this is much easier said than done and that it would take a huge upheaval of our system, but these problems in general have been talked about for more than 200 years, and we are now just starting to come to terms with it. In order to actually create a long-term, better community, we need to start working before the last minute.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The Cradle to Cradle reading about not simply being ‘less bad’ appealed to me as a designer, and almost seemed to be aimed at people who innately try to form new solutions rather than make small adjustments to bad behavior. This seemed to be a central point to the readings for this week, and an overarching concept of the course- that there needs to be a significant scale to our environmental designs. They should be broad and totalizing, integrated into the fabric of our industries, governments, and other collective social activities. Activities such as ‘downcycling’ are useful in the meantime, but are the equivalent of a makeshift plan rather than good design. This idea is exemplified also in the third chapter, where the authors consider the structure of a book and proposed to completely rethink how we make them. The same attitude is applied to building.
    The authors also consider the question of growth, which I found to be an urgent concept to deal with in the formation of a new type of environmental design. It seems inevitable that our post-industrial society will continue to grow, and our designs need to accommodate for that growth while striving to curb as much unnecessary expansion as possible.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Sarah Neuruater
    Reading about product lifespans prompted me to do some research and I found some interesting information online.
    http://www.korea.net/News/news/NewsView.asp?serial_no=20060528018&part=104&SearchDay=
    lifespans of various electronics.
    I also found that a new McDonald's restaurant is only built to last 40 years!
    http://www.korea.net/News/news/NewsView.asp?serial_no=20060528018&part=104&SearchDay=

    ReplyDelete
  21. Aaron Spitz

    I wanted to respond to Paul Scheerbart's article on "Glass Architecture." The title caught my attention partly because a close friend of mine works with hot glass in a glass blowing studio, and I have been inspired by some of his pieces and capabilities. The idea of glass architecture is compelling, because glass design can be inspiring, and windows, skylights or even glass walls can connect us directly to nature. Glass walls, like Scheerbart recommends, would take us visually outside of confined, human-made spaces and open up our vision to whatever is to be seen in the natural world. He gave the example of a public structures around the botanical Gardens in Germany, but even if a city apartment with no flowers or trees nearby had a glass wall or huge windows, at least sun, clouds and stars could be visible. But, the problems with using glass in architecture today are huge. Even Scheerbart mentioned that glass structures are hard to heat in the winter, and might become overly hot in the summer. This would lead to the need for gas, oil or electric heat and airconditioning, with a huge carbon footprint.

    I think that glass architecture could be be a mataphor for problems with environmental design. Glass architeture can be beautiful, and connect us to nature, but science needs to find solutions to help create beautiful but eco-friendly art and architecture. Art and science need to work together. When this doesn't happen, there can be serious problems, either with the architecture itself, or the impact on the enviroment. For example, I grew up in Oak Park, IL, which has a number of buildings designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. Wright made beautiful and functional "prairie style" homes that were designed to fit into nature, not disrupt it. From example, his Home and Studio is built around a large tree, instead of cutting it down. He also used specially designed glass windows, that sometimes run across all of the outside walls of a room. But Wright didn't pay enough attention to science in his designs and building construction. He created flat roofs on many of his buildings, which ended up having water issues from snow/ice building up in the winters, then melting and destroying the roofs and walls. Today we probably have a better sense of how science and technology can be used so that designs can really fit into nature, and not cause more problems.

    When I visited the new Modern Wing of the Art Institute of Chigago, I did notice how light the building is, partly due to white walls and light wood, but also the use of glass to let in available light. Since Chicgo is often grey and gloomy, I thought that this use of glass to allow light was inspiring. I don't know if there are heating, cooling, and cleaning problems. I like to think that this building was designed to provide a way of opening up museums more to nature, and to let Chicagoans to experience as much light as possible,even in winter. I would agree with Scheerbart that if more architecture could use glass this way, without harming the environment, it would change the way we see buildings and nature.
    It's a challege to artists and scientists.

    ReplyDelete
  22. yo jake,

    I think part of the appeal of glass architecture is that it gives the illusion of community, it alludes to an artisan society where glass is made from local materials and distributed within a small radius. This is also the appeal of, say, grass-fed beef. It's still beef, but it appears to be a sustainable form of animal production. So yeah. But locally crafted glass is usually more crude (energy-expensive or at the very least time-consuming) than manufactured glass.

    I don't agree with most people about the future of design in this sense. I think the answer is in cutting back extensively and re-using old materials rather than seeking out "renewable" resources for mass production, which is a high-entropy system. I think that at this second of humanity, we should be using industrial processes more efficiently, and for different things.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I want to respond to liz and the article in cradle to cradle 'why being less bad is no good". I think it is extremely complicated to determine when something is recommended as good for the environment and if there are not hidden risks or dangers. For example i just looked through the MOMA's design store catalougue and noticed how many products were described as using recycled materials, or "wood grown in sustainable forests", or "having a small footprint". Yet we are not really told how much energy is used to produce these products or ship them. For example, one shoulder bag was made out of 700 recylced aluminum flip tops. Since its made in Brazil, there might be extra shipping and production using natural energy or causing pollution.

    I also really enjoy Penn and Teller's Bullshit as well but i also wonder about the bias. There was one program that stated that organic food was no better than food grown with chemical fertilizers but the only guidelines they used were taste and nutritional value. They did not consider the dangers of pesticides. Its hard to try to be eco-friendly because your efforts might cause some other negative effect that you might not be aware of. I agree that less bad is no good.

    -Aaron

    ReplyDelete
  24. Response to Alyssa's blog 1:
    I agree that it is not the designers at fault. I think that while it is their "employers" or other agencies who have contraced them that are partially to blame, it is important to look at the bigger picture. Agencies look to the public to decide what is important and what is going to be the most beneficial way to present an idea.
    Without a change to our society as whole it seems almost impossible to put any one group of people on the chopping block. Until the public revamps its stance on certain issues there will not be a change in any of the agencies in power, I guess it's a negative feedback loop of sorts...
    -Erin Weber

    ReplyDelete