After overcoming the third research lecture of three, I find myself reflecting on what if found, felt and at times endured during the previous weeks. With three very different lectures, I have had three very different experiences.
The first lecture being a philosophical mine field. ‘The aesthetics of indexical drawing’, I immediately thought that it would be an hour of baffling bull excrement, and with little surprise the majority of it was; although it was occasionally enlightened by glimpses of total understanding. The lecture spoke briefly about individuals and their varying perceptions of an object, art piece or alternatively a mere mark on the floor. How do people perceive things and how is that different to how the initially believed they would react? Has anyone ever visited the northern lights in the quest for a complete and utter epiphany of the mind and come away disappointed and significantly underwhelmed? Is there more perfection to be found in the in the imperfect? These were but a few questions I came away thinking. In reflection what was but another desperately mundane night, which was everything but perfect, was nothing less than valuable in causing me to think.
The second lecture would be the complete opposite to the first. What I had initially thought to be useful, purposeful and extremely topical was rather the opposite. ‘The ease of simulation environments for products’, a lecture based on creating products and experiences which focused on the used. A lecture to reinforce my learning on the importance of putting people at the heart of the design process. The lecturer spoke of moving from inspiration to synthesis, to ideation before finishing with its implementation. A process focused on empathy, in order to connect with the need and desire of the people themselves. The lecture pointed towards innovation, but rather his words pointed towards a backwards way of researching. Learning from an artificial world in which people were made to endure, in order to get results that would effect the real world. It seemed terribly incorrect both in thought and practice. Can a machine feel? Can the artificial work in conjunction with the ‘real world’? It all seemed slightly idealist in a push for some sort of desperate innovation that’s non existent.
The third and the most recent lecture was done by a London based fine artist who specialised in miniature art. This particular talk focused on the artists experiences and outcomes which were extremely entertaining and inquisitive. The artist spoke of her time in university when students were taught to produce the tools before they were able to produce their work. Talk of stalking squirrels in order to get the best and finest hairs for her brushes. The intrigue and the immersive nature of the lecture was enthralling. I found myself lost in the eastern world of fine art. Learning about a topic I began with absolutely no interest but finished with pure intrigue. I leave curious about the eastern culture wanting to find, and produce my own tools in order to improve my very own outcomes both mentally and physically. How a simple lecture on the past has propelled me to think of a future, has forced me into thinking and continuing. A thoroughly enjoyable experience.