Posts Tagged ‘RAND Corporation

PART 1 of ASSIGNMENT 1:

Improv Art is the conceptual idea that perpetuates the artistic and innovative design creations of Jason Eppink. Many of his projects including his Take A Seat campaign involve the New York City subway station as that is his main mode of transportation. Because he is always in the subway stations, he seeks to make the experience of waiting, boarding and passing through a subway station more enjoyable for the average American. Eppinks projects in general are focused around the concept of community involvement and bettermen; he seeks to create Universal Design that all experience and appreciate.

-organization: Jason Eppink is a communal designer and artist who’s goal is to design for the needs and appreciation of ALL rather then SOME. Eppink’s work is featured on Investing in Social Art Projects art blog.

-procedures He is spontaneous in nature who is inspired on a whim and acts on those points of inspiration instantly. Most of his designs have a ‘prankster’ attitude about them as well.

-the people involved Jason Eppink is the designer who creates universal design that is meant for all to utilize. To put the “take a seat” project in context the videos below are portrayal of several of this other projects.

http://friendswelove.com/blog/art-we-love-jason-eppink-pixelator/

-the situation within which it takes place Eppink’s designs happen many times in subway stations or just in natural city settings as well.

**ANALYSIS OF TAXONOMIES**

social design: the main focus of this design project is to provide seating/comfort to a wider audience range at any given time (to lessen the physical stress of traveling via subway)

community design: design that will benefit the entirety of the New York subway riding community regardless of age and socioeconomic status. (everyone can appreciate the comfort of sitting over standing for a long period of time)

innovative design: creative design, unique, while also aimed at solving a widely felt problem

environmental design: environmentally friendly design because it takes someone’s trash that would have been left to decay in the streets or to rot in the landfill and recycles it by reassigning its purpose/situation.

PART 2 of ASSIGNMENT 1

Previously, we identified several design negotiations in Eppink’s Take a Seat project

*Finalized Design Negotiations List as of November 17th:*

Comfort vs. Clutter- comfort of people in subway station vs chairs being clunky and taking up limited/valuable space

**REASSESSMENT as of November 20th: too broad/clutter is not really a pertinent issue just not aesthetically pleasing whereas some of the other negotiations are more pertinent in the safety/life of the person experiencing the subway space.

Flow of traffic vs. increase of sitting spaces- chairs limiting walkways for the cause of creating sitting spaces

**REASSESSMENT as of November 20th: too broad again-need a narrow and pertinent negotiation to further analyze.

Individual (introverted) experience vs. group (extroverted) experience- standing (annoyed, waiting for a bus, anxious, nervous, stressed) is more of an introverted experience while sitting and congregating comfortably is more of a group event in which dialogue is more likely to occur (breaks the tension/ice and is a stress reliever)

**REASSESSMENT as of November 20th: an abstract concept whose pertinence is diluted by more obvious design negotiations-possibly a final decicion

Timeliness vs. Friendliness- being on time for destination/job-being prompt and on time vs. sitting, relaxing, losing track of time, conversating

**REASSESSMENT as of November 20th: WE LIKE this one because it makes the abstract idea of the individual vs. group experience more tangible and easier to grasp. Standing and being frustrated allows people to think individually while also enabling them to complete the task that they set out to do in a timely manner where as sitting and being comfortable opens up dialogue and friendliness that could cause a detour from the original time itinerary.

Comfort vs. Safety- comfort of sitting vs. hazardous clunky objects in subway space

**REASSESSMENT as of November 20th: WE LIKE this concept because many of the previous concept related to this concept at their core, also it is referred to in the video posted on our initial site (it is listed below) as many people protested this design for safety measures-definately a FINAL

After a series of debates, trying to determine what would be the best and most important negotiation to mention, we concluded that the negotiations timeliness vs. friendliness as well as comfort vs. safety are the main points.

::FINAL Negotiation BreakDowns as of November 23rd::

TIMELINESS vs. FRIENDLINESS: this is the major design negotiation because people are in subway stations for timely and efficient purposes-to go from point A to point B in the most efficient way possible.The environment of standing and waiting passengers helps to perpetuate this timeliness. This chair project changes the level of time efficiency as people get more comfortable in the chairs and become increasingly more friendly with one another-as people talk more and become more friendly, the efficiency of the subway station changes. (people lose track of time in their comfortable state and negotiate their timeliness for their comfort-enables distraction)

COMFORT vs. SAFETY: Again the concept of comfort is key in these design negotiations as implementing a seating system is meant for the sole purpose of lessening the load of the people waiting in the subway stations. However, this argument is based on the fact that having extra chairs in the already small and limited space of an underground subway system is hazardous to people’s safety within the subway situation.

Jason Eppink Video Interview of Take a Seat (design negotiation reference)

x736bk_take-a-seat-project-on-ny1_news

Critical Mass

10, نوفمبر 2010

What: Critical Mass is a bicycling event usually held on the last Friday of the month in over 300 different cities in the world.  The bike ride lasts as long as an individual participant wants. While the group keeps moving, people are welcome to break away when feeling fatigued.  The goal of this event is for bikers to ride as one critical mass, a unified body unimpeded by any red lights and stop signs they encounter.   

Why: This event was founded in 1992 in San Francisco to draw attention to the hostility the city drivers showed towards bicyclists. Critical Mass is not meant to be a protest or demonstration event, but it is seen as a celebration and gathering of city bikers seeking road rights and visibility.  

Who: All bikers are encouraged to join.  In Atlanta, 445 bikers participated in October 2010. The participation in cities range from 20 to an impressive 10,000 participants in Budapest.  

Notes and Rationale: The design and fluidity of Atlanta’s Critical Mass exudes simplicity.  Without much prior planning, besides a location and time to meet, the event flows smoothly with participants looking out for one another and maintaining the cohesion of the group.  Although surrounding cars honk impatiently, participants have learned to use the corking technique in which some bikers sit in front of the cars with green lights to let the remaining mass of bikers pass through the intersection. In an urban, fast-paced event there is always the risk of injury and accidents, so some participants have taken it upon themselves to wear rollerblades.  The rollerblades give individuals ease and flexibility to move among bikes and provide assistance if needed.   The event’s design is rooted in the collaboration of its participants in regards to everything from the route of the bike ride to facilitating safety. An uncomplicated design like Critical Mass that coordinates such a large group of people emphasizes how the most effective structure can be one that is straightforward and simple.

Negotiations:

(1)The bikers among themselves– communication and collaboration

(2) The bikers and government– the right to run lights and stop signs, the right to use passive-aggressive ways to draw attention

(3) Bikers and motorists– positive attention and negative feedback

(4) Bikers and pedestrians– new conflict created due to biker vs. driver conflict

(5) Critical Mass event structure and RAND Corporation– The RAND Corporation produced a report “What Next for Networks and Netwars?” which analyzes the structure of the ride, evaluating the decentralized decision-making for military battlefield use.  

(6) Bikers and non-participating bikers- creation of “Critical Manners” and “Courteous Mass” (bike events that stop at lights and stop signs)

Taxonomic Categories: Urban Outreach Design, Community Cooperation Design, Community-based design, Mass Collaboration Design, Government Attention-drawing Design, Safety-promoting Design


top