Uncreative Design

Response Week 2

Prashast posted Questions in Reading Responses, Response Week 2

How we are influenced by something indicates its authority on us. What is the authority of the spaces that we navigate to find ideas (internet, museums etc.)? Do we consciously acknowledge these spaces?


How does the loss of voice in LeWitt-esque instructional models affect the draftsman psychologically? Would the draftsman move closer to becoming the artist if s/he repeatedly articulated the artist’s concept through method?


How do we value things in virtual space?  How is sitting on a couch and being on the internet looking at something through a screen versus being in a physical space and looking at something different? Is the internet generally viewed as a “cheaper” place than the physical world?

Morgan posted in Reading Responses, Response Week 2

1. Goldsmith says “Data is not information until it is available to potential consumers of that information.” Do you agree? Does this statement make designers more important than they should be?

2. Do you think there is a distinction between ‘viewership’ and thinkership’? Are we not both viewers and thinkers as designers? Why or why not?

3. Do you think Goldsmith is looking for attention in his writing? Do you think he fully believes what he’s writing, or is he just trying to rouse a response?

Mrityunjay posted Reading Response Questions for Chapters 4-7 in Response Week 2

1. Goldsmith notes that an enormous part one’s identity is adopted from advertising. Is our design culture also adopted from advertising? If so, to what extent has it had an impact on the way we design?

2. When is designing for thinkership more important than viewership (and vice versa)? Is there such thing as a combination of the two?

3. What do you think of LeWitt’s decision to renege on his stance to allow anyone to freely copy his “recipes” due to the fact that many were poorly produced? Should the focus of LeWitt’s work be on the process or the end product? Should the craftsmanship of work following LeWitt’s instructions matter?

Source: Bradford, Teddy. Reading Response Questions for Chapters 4-7

tina posted questions in Response Week 2

“our digital ecology is a virtual corollary to Debord’s urbanism” (41)

(but) What are the inherent differences between digital and physical space? How do these differences change the way we navigate
and understand these spaces?

(i.e.chance encounters with real people vs chance encounters with “minds” that have neither identity nor face?)

“decentered, constellation-oriented global networks where no one geographic entity has sole possession of content” (60)

Does the internet have rules? Can the Internet and its content be possessed? If so, by whom and for what?

“Free-floating media files around the net are subject to continuous morphing and manipulation as they become further removed from their sources.” (77)

What are the implications of destabilizing authority on the Internet?

Dana posted Response Week 2 – Dana Elkis in Reading Responses, Response Week 2

1 : How come the draftsman as a partner of the artists don’t get the credit of the artwork. why isn’t his name is written together with the artist name. although the idea and the instruction were the artist. he has still a lot in it. weather the artist would like it or not. how come thats ok ?

2 : “Art shouldn’t be based on skills” , on what should it be based ? is there any room for design schools / art school / learning literature ?

3 : What if there is no space in the world for uncreative writing ? if we are trying so hard to understand why we cant make it sexier or cooler , maybe it is because we are trying too hard to find answers? maybe there are no answers ? maybe it just no the right medium for that kind of uncreative creation ?

Keela posted in Reading Responses, Response Week 2

1. What are your thoughts about Sol LeWitt’s idea of having the artist make purposefully uninteresting choices so that the viewer doesn’t get distracted from the concepts behind the work? Is this a notion you adhere to already, is it something you are beginning to seek out during this class, or is it something that offends you?

2. How do you understand the space between the draftsman and the artist? Is this a space of indefinite creation?

3. Goldsmith understands appropriation as a complex task. “There were as many decisions, moral quandaries, linguistic preferences, and philosophical dilemas as there are in an original or collaged work” (120). Does “effort” or “difficulty” give any value to work?

Prin posted Response Week 2 in Response Week 2

  1. “Those who have something to say have a place to say it and an audience to hear it. The importance of this work cannot be underestimated (83)” But if everybody has something to say and then will anybody actually listen? Isn’t this the main problem with internet forums where only the funniest and most ridiculous comments gets upvoted to the top?
  2. “David Bower… constantly reinvents himself for the market. He mirrors our culture of planned obsolescence. For consumer culture, it has been suggested, the constantly changing, chameleon persona represents empowerment” Writing needs to move in this direction. (96)” Then where’s the personal voice? Aren’t people just constantly regurgitating? Are we only waiting for other people’s opinions?
  3. Is expressing an opinion or writing that isn’t “yours” a form of trolling for reactions?

Jamar posted Questions for Week 2 in Response Week 2

1) According to the reading, should uncreative writers be referred as, “curators,” as opposed to, “writers?”

2) Although Goldsmith supports the idea of uncreative writing becoming the new norm of creative form, should it replace creative writing, or should it live alongside it as a new, acceptable form?

3) In terms of curriculum, should an assignment of copying be added to the curriculum? Would it actually work similarly as it would in the example in Chapter 7?

Namita posted in Response Week 2

1. “Data is not information until it becomes available to potential consumers of that information.” The statement seems to speak of digesting information to make it palatable for a specified audience. How far does the act of remixing fully ‘digest’ information for the specified audience to understand?

2. Furthermore, we may remix content with a specified audience in mind, but in our day and age we are creating for a diverse audience. When recreating and remixing, how do we consider the expectations of a diverse audience?

3. “Language works on several levels, endlessly flipping back and forth between the meaningful and the material.” Do we need to give value to content over context and vice-versa?

4.Does honesty in our intentions make plagiarism ok?


Mrityunjay posted Reading response Week 2 in Response Week 2

Is there a place for authors or should writing stand alone?

Can collection be creation?

What are the philosophical roots of the idea of fairness?