Gotta Love these Gas Prices

Sorry I’ve been gone for awhile. Today at work I came across an article in our local paper titled Spending Rises, I had to post about it. It either was the most optimistic article ever written or the writer was a complete idiot with no journalistic opinion. The article focused on a rise in national consumer spending; agreeing with economists’ claims that job gains offset gas and food prices. Ok I’ll acknowledge that the unemployment rate is going down and has been since its last peak in Jan 2011, where it reached 9.8% (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) Check it out on Google. However, gas prices along with crude oil have both continued to soar steadily upwards. That last record that the EIA, U.S. Energy Information Administration, had on 05/06/11 sited crude oil at $116.91. May 2010 it was at $70.90 and those all are domestic prices which are much lower than imported oil. Right now my commodities widget say Crude Oil is at 99.65 still $30 up from last year, which we all know was a worse economic climate than this year.

These spikes cause prices in your local store to go up. Food, paper products, electronics, plastics (which is in or surrounds everything); anything that is made in a factory and has to be shipped to you or a store near you is affected by oil/gas prices. You know the only thing that’s not affected by gas/oil prices, your salary. Our salaries are not raised in direct correlation to oil/gas, in most cases it has the inverse effect. People lose their jobs because employers have to make their services cheaper to fight rising prices in all the products and services they need to operate. And what are the first major assets companies let go of? You guessed it, their employees. Even if you still have your job your annual bonus isn’t getting larger because we’re in an economic squeeze, in-fact it may even be getting smaller.

This is just one thing this article just seemed to overlook, then they got into the signs that the economy is getting better. The article quoted the U.S. Department of Commerce saying “More expensive gas boosted retail sales 0.5% in April, the 10th straight month of gains.” Ok, sure if retail sales go up that means consumers are spending on non-essential which means we have cash to spare, right? WRONG! Sales are only up because the prices of the items themselves are up. For example your favorite pairs of jeans that cost usually cost (your not gonna believe this number when you see it) about $7-8 to make now cost $10-15 to make. So the company raises their market value from $30-50 to $60-80. Thereby escaping losses due to manufacturing cost and recessional shopping. So that was essentially ignored by the article. It did mention that “Companies also paid more for raw materials and factory goods in April,” but failed to mention the correlations to rises in market values. They acknowledge the Dept of Labor’s findings that there was a rise of 0.7% but then minimized that fact by stating that the gain if you take out perishable food (which includes meats, milk, bread, eggs, fruits, veg; staples in any diet) & energy cost it was only 0.3% same gain as March. Hold up Dept of Labor did you just try to, as Mr. Brown from the Madea comedies would say “Munipudip Me?” The gain in March including that stuff was 0.3% April is was 0.7%, come on!

Stop lying to me, I’m talking to you “economist”, excuse me “lying” was a harsh word. I should have said “Stop making the issue complicated!” Just tell me exactly where we are. Whenever they get on the news my eyes roll so far around I’m scared they may get stuck. They get on the air and just babble and you hear a lot of “UHHHHH, Well, inflation, inflation prices, overall, blah, blah, blah” Just watch this.

Bernanke sounds like a blathering idiot trying to confuse other (I won’t assume the American public is idiotic), lets just say ignorant people. I just want an economist for once to give it to me plain and straight, if we’re doing bad just say so. Don’t try to sugar coat it or confuse us with your “economic-babble.” Say what is truly going on in the market, I promise we won’t shoot you. Or at least I promise I won’t shoot you. Idk, I don’t claim to have any solutions but I’m telling you they don’t have any either. It’s just frustrating for them to be the only voice for the status of the economy, because they speak excuse my french “Sh*tnese or Sh*talian” All I know is that they and our President, God bless him I wouldn’t want his job right now, better figure out how to bring my gas prices down from $4.00. Remember growing up (talking to the 80′s babies) and gas was $1.35 a $1.20 in some remote places. Forget God Bless America; put a comma in there take a moment for effect GOD, BLESS AMERICA….PLEASE!

The way we express ourselves says alot about where we are in our lives. Most people who have any sense speak from their experiences. How can you not? If you don’t they whatever proceeds to leave your lips is a lie. How can we (I say we because I’m included) speak on what we don’t know or what we haven’t known for ourselves. But you know what is interesting it when we encounter moments that we’ve never experienced that utter truth rings from out our mouths.

“When I was a child, …., I thought like a child”

In those moments of the unknown we don’t know what to say so sometimes we say nothing. We only can think. We begin to internally turn ourselves inside out to search for the answer. Sometimes it’s painful, joyful, amazing, terrifying, tremendous, awful, glorious, repulsive, horrible, painless, peaceful, wonderful. STOP!

“When I was a child, …., ….., I reasoned like a child”

Wonderful, do we really know what that word means think about it break it down. WONDER FUL=FULL OF WONDER. For something to be full of wonder it must be spectacular. But if you think about it, the word doesn’t actually carry the connotation we think it carries. We think it instantly means “good” im not saying it can’t. All I’m saying that it means something in this world has stumped you and all you can do is wonder in the verb sense of the word. Wonder what to say, what to do, how to act and react.

“When I became a man, I put childish things behind me.”

It’s when we learn how to move beyond the “like a child” that we learn to truly speak, think, and act. And those unknown moments call us up to a higher standard. Those are what truly define us. Everyone of our experiences were once the unknown. And look how far we have come. So it is the moments of the uncertain, unrevealed, undetermined, undecided, unsure, unsettled, unresolved that we must rise to the occasion. And I feel that 99.9% of the time I meet that standard and I hope and pray that you can too.

After WWI the kitchen became the heart of the American home. No longer was this considered the servants’ arena or even an unwelcoming room. The Kitchen became the heart of the American home. So by the end of the Great Depression obviously manufactures knew this was a ripe market and began to fill American Kitchens with objects. Some object actually fulfilled a need and some did not. Still, this market became a staple of the American economy, by the early 1980s; miscellaneous appliance makers in the United States were shipping over $1.5 billion worth of goods each year. By the late 1990s, industry shipments were valued at $3.7 billion, and that number slowly continues to climb about 3% every year. The Kitchen became a less labor-intensive room, a room where family began to gather, a cleaner place. The kitchen of the previous centuries was dependent on coal or steam. Then in the late 1930’s electric appliances were finally becoming something that the average American could indulge in. And after WWII the American economy was booming and war factories turned the focus to household objects. Irene Weed a writer for House Beautiful said “Let us make our homes fit into the new order of things! And where better can we begin than in the heart of those homes-the kitchen [?]”  (Gdula 28).

Architecturally speaking the dream home of post-war America was an open plan two story colonial “which emphasized the display of domestic gadgetry.” In the early 1930’s it was never fashionable to host parties in your kitchen. Food preparation was something your guest never saw no less participated in. Post-war Many families would host parties just to show off their new toasters and electric griddles. The kitchen was seen as a barrier between guest and host. One room was for making the food the other for serving it. But no longer the two were becoming one. It was so that you could show off your brand new fridge, smart stove, or convenient kitchen do-dads. “The Kitchen replaced the parlor as the showplace of the home and the ‘Kitchen of Tomorrow’ promised a cornucopia of glamorous hardware” (Vololato 97). After WWI Americans saw the kitchen as a place of expression. It no longer was a place for work but a place for hobbies, parties, and pleasures. Perfect example of this, during the late 1940’s kitchen islands appeared in more American kitchens because it became a pedestal to show off the newest gadget you had. It also catered more toward hosting parties (Plante 269).  But what started all of this? Factor in four things; first the End of the Great Depression & the eventual end of WWII which frees up lots of money & resources. Secondly, The late 1930’s marked the beginning of the TV entering the American home. And the American public was bombarded with ads that told us we needed the next best, qualitative, improved, terrific, fresh, luxurious product. And it would improve out life ten fold.  Third, include the massive amount of consumers come home from war ready to buy. Thanks to the GI Bill, veterans enjoyed access to low-interest housing loans and assistance with down payments. Lastly, add the perfected system of the assembly line process. You have got the makings for an economic boom that would result with a nations consumer pattern.

The Great Depression was triumphed thanks to WWII. That same war in turn boosted America’s GDP, meaning economic expansion. Essentially meant more money in the pockets of many Americans who dreamed of owning a home. America’s female work force had pumped out war machines like cakes.  Then when the war was over many factories were left over or released out of their government contracts so they turned to making things for the public. These factories were polished versions of Henry Ford’s model of the production process. Henry Ford, a pioneer in mass scale production didn’t intend for his system to be abused in the way it has been for the last 100 years. His 1908 Ford T model was built to last and did last into the 1930’s. Once the cultured changed from thrift to material so did the products. Manufactures realized that people had money to spend and were willing to spend it. So they accommodated consumers’ desires to buy. Then rather than the consumer controlling the market, the Manufactures now controlled what we were able to buy. They realized ‘we can make so many so fast, so we want you to buy a new one every few months or weeks rather than just buying one every few years. Stride Gum makes a parody sketch in their ads based around this thought. They are advertising how long their flavor last, but in the commercials they express how it’s halting their production because people won’t spit out their first piece. Their tagline say it all “Spit out you stride gum and chew another piece, already! Or we’ll find you.” (Stride Gum) All of this eventually led the way for product obsolescence or planned obsolescence. Mass Production specifically the assembly line became the main proponent of product obsolescence, which then expanded out into different types of obsolescence.

Designers for the first time in American history would play a crucial role in American culture.  Designers of this period were more like dressers or fitters of products. They were there to make things appealing. J. Gordon Lippincott said in his book Design for Business “There is only one reason for hiring and Industrial Designer, and that is to increase the sales of a product” (Whiteley 6). It was his belief and many other critiques of the day that, good design was determined by the mass acceptance of the public. The designer’s job was sort of defined for him. In Gregory Votolato’s book American Design in the 20^th Century the term tasted is introduced to describe what the masses wanted. And it was the designer’s job to twist ad manipulate people’s taste through the aesthetic of a product. Citizens now defined themselves through their products. Snobbishness, based on family history was a thing of the past. “Position [was] derived from personal accomplishments [and acquisitions.]” Taste became a whole industry unto itself. The function of designers was to create the demand for new products. Design became the vehicle that manufactures advertised their products. (Vololato 26-28). This idea was applied to cars, appliances, furniture, etc. New styles would be created to market to specific buyers, Hence the introduction of targeted audience marketing. However this is just a ploy to attract buyers to specific brands or types even though the products are technically and technologically the same. The focus of designers shifted from product to brand, the reliability of the product was secondary to the branding. Consumers began to identify themselves through their brands. Taking the idea of taste to the next level and renaming it as identity (Vololato 42). As far as manufactures were concerned citizens now were labeled as full time consumers. The 1956 President of NBC, Robert Sarnoff was quoted saying, “The reason we have such standard of living is because advertising has created an American frame of mind that makes people wan more things, better things, newer things” (qtd. in Vololato 48). ­­ Television became the platform to promote branding in a new way. Television gave advertisers a way visually create the desire and coherence consumers into purchasing the product (Vololato 50).

This economical and political environment was perfect for the golden age of the kitchen. However, politics in the 1960’s was radically different from the previous decades. The few tragic years of America’s Royal family Kennedys and the messy years of Lyndon B. Johnson were the focus of every American. We were waging two wars one in Vietnam and a domestic war against civil injustice. Past were the years of the domestic homemaker. Even the pop culture of the day was telling the youth to rebel against the norms. What was the norm? Well the product ‘placement’ filled home their parents had grown up in during 1940’ and 50’s was the norm. That period was full of things that were to assist with the woman’s role in the home. But with the grass roots of the feminist movement rising, the homemaker image was being torn down. In it place was a woman who still cooked and cleaned but wasn’t kept in captivity buy the products she used.

During this period the kitchen began to take on the restaurant look.  To give the impression of a quality meal, and was it a coincidence that this was the beginning of microwavable foods and food of that nature. The 1960’s Kitchen was a less intrusive place. The colors were more muted, colors such as mustard, copper, avocado, that horrible brownish color. Even the materials were less flashy. In a 1960’s kitchen you saw more wood than chrome. So if the consumer changed the market would have to change with them. Instead of offering 100 pretty products to get one meal on the table, there were products that did more than one thing at a time. Appliances were designed to look like furniture and accessories that had multi functions. In order to cut down on clutter and mess, because nobody had time for that. (Plante 274-75). Products like self-cleaning ovens and dishwashers became a standard in most American kitchens. The kitchen was moving from a display room to a social room where the family was able to take time to meet. But life was faster than it was in the 50’s. Pre-prepare meals were taking over the dinner menu. The kitchen was just supposed to be a clean pristine kitchen only used when cooking. Pass through doorways became larger, shutters were being phased out, the architecture of the kitchen was becoming more like a large hallway. With less and less time being spent in the kitchen how would appliance manufactures keep loyal customers. The average American family of the 1970’s had two working parents and both knew how to cook. But neither had the time, so quick meals like Hamburger Helper and Manwich entered the kitchen. None of these meals require much cook time, space, or accessories.

“The Kitchen adapted to the woman of the 1970’s leaving the house and going to work outside the home” (Gdula 142). Just as the roles of mom and dad were changing so were the functions of the kitchen. Things such as homework, entertaining, office work, household chores were taking place in the kitchen. Well since the kitchen was being used less and less to cook it was made to be more acceptable to other task. Now that the kitchen is essentially open to the whole house you don’t want everyone to see your outdated appliances. You’ll need to update them.  Once again manufactures had an opportunity to redefine what the kitchen was supposed to look like. Designers were getting back to the more ‘natural’ materials but with innovative tech. Instead of natural wood, a wood veneer face would be place on cabinets and wood trim would line all the appliances. Since the oven or the fire of the stove was no longer on all day the feelings of warmth and security had to come from other sources. “With warm colors, you’re re-creating the new notion of home” (Gdula 143). Through new colors and finishes designers were trying to fill the void mother left in the kitchen.

In the 1980’s and 90’s the kitchen was no longer being dictated. By this time so many styles had been established. Some people were going retro chic, restaurant modern, contemporary classic; it was anybodies game. That period was really undefined as to what was a necessity in the kitchen. Entire television networks had been created around the concept of kitchen décor. Magazines such as Better Homes, HOME, This Old House, Architectural Digest and many more offered 1000 different ways to style your kitchen. The kitchen had literally become an extension of the homeowners. The kitchen had transformed from a platform to show case your cooking accessories and appliances to becoming the accessory itself. It said more about you than any other room in your house. Then within the last 10 years a new trend began which manufactures have jumped onto but not the right reasons. The environmental movement that blipped in the 70’s has taken over the whole radar. Every major kitchen appliance manufacture, G&E, Whirlpool, Kitchen Aid, LG, Colman, Maytag, Electrolux, and others, all offer and energy efficient version of multiple models. And the newest trend in color is silver but only because it looks professional. White was a constant throughout every decade because it matched everything and it looks clean. But the new ‘clean’ is ‘sterile.’ But that whole mindset is ridiculous because the professional kitchen is a horrible dirty place.  Unless it’s like a 5 star French restaurant but even then it’s ‘iffy’. Just goes to show you that designers, whether they want to admit it or not, are the engines of desire. If we can make it sleeker, more precise, rounder, squarer, taller, skinnier, bigger, smaller, people will buy it.

Thomas Jefferson said, “If you really want to know a culture you have to look into the people’s pots and eat their bread” (qtd. in Gdula xi). Jefferson argued that you could understand a person economic, religious, ethic, political and geographical influences all through their kitchen. Now he said that 18^th century, if that was true then it most certainly is true now. Kitchens are more that places that we cook and eat they are communal hubs in our homes and our neighborhoods. They serve as the entry point of most commercial goods. Every week or two weeks we bring in commercial consumables. They are the markets entry point into out homes. It is how designers entered our homes in the first place. The object we put in them and how we build them are a reflection of us. I would argue that consumer culture most affects us through our kitchens. It is the most transitional room in the home even more so than our bedrooms.  But what is in store for our kitchens is anyone’s guess. The next thing you know we won’t need a kitchen. Instead of an entire room for food prep there will be only a dining room with a small ‘replicator station’ like in Star Trek. You walk up and say Banana pancakes please. And out of some light appears your meal. But whatever it is the designer will always be at the wheel steering the consumer toward which replicator to pick.

Sources

Dreyfuss, Henry. Designing for people. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1955.

Gdula, Steven. The Warmest Room in the House. New York: Bloomsbury, 2008.

HighBeam Business Research . 2009. The Gale Group, Inc. 13 Dec. 2009. http://business.highbeam.com/industry-reports/equipment/household-appliances-not-elsewhere-classified

Plante, Ellen M. The American Kitchen 1700 to the Present. New York: Fact on File Inc, 1995.

Stride Gum. “Office Park.” 2009. Online video clip. StrideGum.com. 11 Dec. 2009. <http://www.stridegum.com/#/advertising/>

Vololato, Gregory. American Design in the Twentieth Century. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998.

Whiteley, Nigel. “Toward a Throw-Away Culture. Consumerism, ‘Style Obsolescence’ and Cultural Theory in the 1950s and 1960s.” The Oxford Art Journal. Vol. 10. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1987

But now they have a new pollution to deal with. Ever since City Attorney Rocky Delgadilio was elected there has been tons of advertising construction and it’s not your basic billboard. There have been over 900 new digital billboards installed throughout the city. Buildings in downtown LA are being covered with massive supergraphics. It’s so out of control one company has created a tag-line based in this foolishness. SkyTag a local LA company claims, “Our supergraphics can be seen from space!” It has become such an infestation that City Attorney Delgadilio and the City Council are trying to reverse what they have started. Natives are saying that it has become a serious problem. Distracting bright signs that change every few seconds could become a hazard to the thousands of LA commuters. Many LA natives are complaining about the light pollution caused at night. Some have even compared it to the sci-fi flick Blade Runner.

The local government is drafting a new ordinance that would effectively ban all new public advertising projects and install new restrictions on completed ones. This problem has ruffled some feathers but brought up some interesting points. Designers are the force behind this whether they know it or not. Think about it an architect designed the billboard itself. Someone designed the product that is being sold on the billboard. A graphic designer had to design the actual ad. Even an urban planner had to at least approve the billboard placement. So this essentially is our fault. Yes someone commissioned or contracted our work but we agreed to contribute to this. So we are responsible. My initial thought would be, to not try to deceive people into buying things. But unfortunately I don’t believe this country is ready for that especially LA of all cities.

California has been a forerunner in the sustainable effort in the United States. Why should one of the major cities in that state go directly against that image? Has anyone thought about how much energy these boards waste? To have them flashing all day and night must be costing the city a small fortune. Or how many materials are wasted on large supergraphics? There is one question that could be asked. Why do these signs need to be digital? They don’t, if it’s such a problem the city should just revoke them. LA is already such a congested city in every other way possible. Do they really need to populate the area with massive changing signs or even massive supergraphics? Just because we have the ability to do something doesn’t mean we should.

Reference Article: http://observatory.designobserver.com/entry.html?entry=8227

Sing Girl, Sing!

I usually don’t discuss TV/entertainment on my blog, but I had to say something about this. I was torn over this episode. I applaud the actors for their effort an willingness to try this. But come on, the only other popular drama’s to do this were “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” & “Scrubs” and might I point out both had a comedy factor that Grey’s doesn’t have or need. There were songs such as Universe and U & Chasing Cars, which I thought were very appropriate and that golden sunshine song fit in a weird way. Some of the singing was great, I very much enjoyed Sara Ramirez’ (Callie) and Chandra Wilson (Miranda) voices. Their voices had a unique quality that other simply lacked. Others such as Kevin McKidd (Hunt) or Kim Raver (Teddy), their performances seemed a little “hoaky” for me.

The other thing that had me on edge was the characters singing during surgery. It just seemed ridiculous at times. Those moments are suppose to feel tense and suspenseful. Sometime the singing was so involved in the scene it was hard to stay focused on what was atually happening. Maybe the producers/director wanted it that way, but I wasn’t a big fan. I could have gotten into it more if the actors’ sing was just dubbed over as soundtrack. I mean if their mouths weren’t signing the words and they were still involved with the moment at hand. I just felt there was a disconnect between what was actually going on in the scene and what the actors where doing. I think it would have been better for the characters to be literally singing in their heads rather than from their mouths during intensive surgery scenes. It just really felt  like it didn’t fit. What doctor would be belting a ballad during surgery. I know the characters weren’t really doing that but the visuals fought the intention. Like I said before I really enjoyed all of Callie’s performances they worked perfectly and the songs outside of the O.R. work pretty good too. All in all I think the episode worked, I give it a B+. It made me cry and made me laugh, and I truly respect everyone involved with this episode for try this. Sara Ramirez told the Hollywood Reporter before it aired: “There were many times where I felt like, ‘Oh my gosh, we’re doing the best episode of ‘Grey’s Anatomy’ ever. And there were other times where I thought, ‘Did we drink the Kool-Aid and we’re all terrible?’” ” Well Sara I think you drank the Kool-Aid but it turned out it was just regular old Kool-Aid.

What’s hilarious is it happened to take place in the same bar the previous year. In the video a drunk Galliano hurls anti-Semitic rants at a group of Italian women and is reported to say “I love Hitler… People like you would be dead. Your mothers, your forefathers would all be f***ing gassed.”

Galliano has a court date set with charges similar to disturbing the peace. According to the Financial Times, Galliano could be facing serious jail time up to six months and a fine around $30,000! Dior obviously doesn’t approve of his actions, according to the New York Times Sidney Toledano, Dior’s president and chief executive officer, referred to Galliano’s “odious behavior.” However a few icons such as Patricia Fields, famous for her costume design expertise seen on Sex and the City and Devil Wear Prada, are rallying behind Galliano. She was quoted by WWD Media saying “People in fashion all they do is go and see John Galliano theater every season. That’s what he gives them. To me, this was the same except it wasn’t in a theater or in a movie,” she said. “John lives in theater. It’s theater. It’s farce. But people in fashion don’t recognize the farce in it. All of a sudden they don’t know him. But it’s OK when it’s Mel Brooks’ ‘The Producers’ singing Springtime for Hitler.”

The Mighty Galliano

‘Hold up, wait a minute!’ Let me stop her right there I don’t care what his intention was, twice is not just for arts sake. I’m and artist and I love the spectacle of the fashion industry. But come one comparing Mel Brooks’ ‘Springtime for Hitler’ and John’s incident is ridiculous. Mel Brooks was using satire and comedy to enlighten people. What about Galliano’s recent actions is enlightening? Don’t get me wrong I love the man’s clothes he is a very skilled designer. If someone offered me anything made by Galliano I wouldn’t hesitate to take it. Still I think he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent and justice should be served. PS this is rumored but John is trying to counter sue the couple for defamation of character come on now? Really? You insult me and now you want to sue me for defamation of character. He must have lost too much blood pricking himself while sewing up his clothes. ‘John you crazy!’ That’s just me what do you think about the situation?

Sources:

New York Times

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/christian-dior-sa/index.html?scp=4&sq=john%20galliano&st=cse

http://tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/john-galliano-fired-from-dior/?scp=3&sq=john%20galliano&st=cse

PatriciaFields.com/patriciafieldsblogspot.com

http://patriciafield.blogspot.com/2011/03/patricia-field-defends-john-galliano.html

The Sun

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3436757/Film-of-John-Gallianos-racist-rant-in-bar.html

WWDMEDIA

http://www.wwd.com/media-news/patricia-field-defends-john-galliano-3529050/

Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Galliano#Suspension_and_dismissal

Towerland.com

http://www.towleroad.com/2011/02/john-galliano-files-defamation-lawsuit-against-couple-he-is-accused-of-attacking.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+towleroad%2Ffeed+%28Towleroad+Daily++%23gay+n

This film is a testament to how our world governments operate. The perfect example of how national and even global policy is decided. Instead of using reason or anything that resembles logic, we resort to using backwater channels, and twisting numbers, facts, statistics to fit the desires of a few elected (and usually ignorantly elected) officials. Nothing is based in truth only half-truths that officials spout and spew for their usually foaming mouths. As if your passion or anger equates to your validity or accuracy. Here is a bit from a scene right after an official meeting about backing an American war effort between British/America delegates and government officials. Mr. Linton Barwick an American ‘Secretary of Policy’ the man gun-ho for the war is speaking with his top aide Bob Adriano to find out how the meeting went.

Bob Adriano: Ah, generally positive, two glitches…
Linton Barwick: Really, what?
Bob Adriano: Karen flagged a report by one of her staffers. She’s obviously trying to use it as some kind of roadblock. It’s called PWIP PIP.
Linton Barwick: PWIP what?
Bob Adriano: PWIP PIP.
Linton Barwick: What is it, a report on bird calls? What does it even stand for?
Bob Adriano: I can’t recall. It’s factish. Intel for and against intervention.
Linton Barwick: We have all the facts on this we need. We don’t need any more facts. In the land of truth, my friend, the man with one fact is the king. You said there was something else, what is that?
Bob Adriano: In the meeting with the Foreign Office, the committee was accidentally and briefly alluded to.
Linton Barwick: Which committee?
Bob Adriano: The…
[quietly]
Bob Adriano: The war committee, sir.
Linton Barwick: All right, Karen is not to know about this, huh? She is an excitable, yapping she-dog. Get a hold of those minutes. I have to correct the record.
Bob Adriano: We can do that?
Linton Barwick: Yes, we can. Those minutes are an aide-memoire for us. They should not be a reductive record of what happened to have been said, but they should be more a full record of what was intended to have been said. I think that’s the more accurate version, don’t you?

The man basically tells his aid “We control what is said and what people will think or know what was said.” In the scene they go and completely change the documents. Another scene later on the British foil to the Linton character, Mr. Malcolm Tucker, completely changes intel to fit his pro war needs. Then uses that document to rig the voting in favor of the war. This, this is how governments even against their own populations’ wishes go to war with other countries or approve bills that totally go against the general public’s consensus.

Don’t get me wrong there are a few people in our (the world’s) governments who truly mean to do good as shown by the film’s half-witted protagonist Simon Foster. But most officials are so busy try to protect their own a**, whether it be from their own constituents or their government peers. Which the latter of that last statement seems to carry much more weight. It’s like politics is, at least ‘American’ politics is just big d**k waving contest. Instead of actually working together to get anything done, passed, put through, or changed; our government no excuse me I should say our two political parties just fight about who is getting their way. Isn’t it ironic how this ‘democracy’ (democratic republic) is truly only represented by two, count them two political parties. How can 310,958,000 (estimate US Census Bureau) be represented by two parties. How can two parties with one view on every topic from religious clout to economic standards represent every person in this country. It’s really preposterous when you actually think about it but I digress.

It’s just pitiful our dysfunctional pretty little ‘democracies’ are. We (America & Allies [don't believe me check out the ISAF]) are so ready to push our governmental ideals and policies on other countries but we can’t even get our acts together. It like telling your child candy rots your teeth as you chomp down on a snickers. Now I can only speak for the US when I say this. But our government  in my opinion is like a beautiful corpse bride. Gorgeous until you lift the veil. Don’t get to close you might see or hear something you don’t want to.

Johnny Depp plays the World and Helena Bonham Cater gives a stunning performance as America

Be sure to check out the movie @ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1226774/

Monotony

The monotony of the day to day;
gather the trash, for the trash man tolls,
little plastic bag after little plastic bag.

Stop, sit, wait, what next;
check the communiqué lines,
login waiting waiting waiting……nothing new today.

O check the hardlines,
“Please enter your password then press pound you have no new messa-”
What about the post, the carrier came at twelve today he may bring new news.

To my suprise something does come,but alas only requests mostly demands for funds.
The day if filled with little frivolities that amount to a life full of nothing.
Trying to fill the day with meaning, a purpose, waiting for life to start.

Everyone says “Your already living it” but i don’t believe them.
I just seems as if the days run together, and days or no longer days;
but actually become sequential task, but back to the task at hand.

Collecting bygone task,
throwing away the past, days gone by.
Memories of things once desired no longer needed

The monotony of the day to day;
gather the bygones, for life tolls on,
little plastic bygones after little plastic bygones

With a passion for architecture the last thing I wanted to do before I left Uarts was to begin to approach this sector of design. So I started asking questions? Can a space directly effect a person’s feelings? What makes a space intimate? How do people truly relate to space. What does it take  for  people to truly claim a space for their own? These are some of the questions that this project aims to answer.

The initial spark for this project was born out of many evenings spent in Liberty Place working until they would kick me out of the building. I began to ask myself why do we love to work in the same spaces. What about those spaces draws us to them.

My spot in the Liberty Place

The design process should begin with the user in mind, so I turned to psychology. Specifically Environmental Psychology which is an interdisciplinary field focused on the interplay between humans and their surroundings. The field defines the term environment broadly, encompassing natural environments, social settings, built environments, learning environments, and informational environments. One must have a model of human nature that predicts the environmental conditions under which humans will behave in a decent and creative manner. With such a model one can design or restore environments that enhance reasonable behaviors. The following is some of the more pertinent research.

Evolution of Space

Animals become territorial of the space designated for nesting, mating, and feeding. Even more so when members of the same species and sex invade on the same space. Humans have the ability to cope with these situations, the act of aggression is much more socialized among humans. However, the desire to posses and or occupy space is no less or different than animal instincts. We create boundaries around everything so that we may claim something as our own (cities, states, countries, vip sections, etc). When humans collectively share a space their behavior subtly mirrors the behavior of animals defending individual territory. Because there is no defined owner of the space the space is feuded over whether it be hostile or passive.

After intensive research into the psychology of space. It seemed only logical to begin to look into the psychology of architecture. You my ask “What is the psychology of architecture?” I asked the same question so I began to read architects’ and architectural writers’ literature. I quickly realized that most of them weren’t talking directly about architecture, but rather the metaphysics of architecture. Specifically dealing with the stuff in between what we call ‘architecture.’ Books such as The Tao of Architecture, The Poetics of Space, and others dealt with the immaterial rather than the walls that make up a space.

In the Tao of Architecture Chang quotes Laotzu “Moulding clay into vessel, we find the utility in it hollowness; Cutting doors and windows for a house, we find the utility in its empty space. Therefore the being of things is profitable, the non-being of things is serviceable. Void space which usually has a negative connotation is actually more positive because it has a more utilitarian function(s) than the walls or windows which only have one purpose which is to separate.” Laotzu made these statements to imply that the immaterial space is the most important, not the actual physical structures. Unlike many contemporary architects today, Laotzu understood what the focus of architecture should be.

Louis I. Kahn’s fascination with light is infamous. “The sun never knew how great it was until it struck the side of a building.” This book dealt with what Kahn called the ‘unmeasurable’ and the ‘measurable’ The unmeasurable was the silence, the space inside the walls. And the measurable was what we acknowledge as architecture. He said that architecture is where the two meet. “[It] can become a celebration of [the] meeting and the abode of the spirit”

In Poetics of Space Bachelard said “All spaces of intimacy are designated by an attraction. Their being is well-being” (Bachelard 12). That statement resonated with me , it turned the focus of the project. I knew that I wanted whatever I created to facilitate feelings of familiarity and intimacy.

So based upon all the previous research and reading I came upon my initial position. I argued that the architecture surrounding a human interaction can influence the nature of the interaction; Arguing that the given space could be engineered to encourage feelings of wellness. Thereby creating an intimate space. Coaxing positive feelings or interactions out of those inhabiting the space. (Physical settings evoke complex human responses in the form of feelings, attitudes, expectancies [which may in turn affect the outcome of the interaction])

Most influential book for the project

Now that I knew what I wanted the project to do. I wondered how to begin to engage and use the information that I had amassed. I came across the most influential book for this project. Ettore Sottsass’ Metaphors is some of the most simple beautiful architectural experiments I have ever seen. He decided that he needed to detach from design as a practice. He said  he felt a “need to get away.” I thought I would follow in his footsteps since he was trying to get away from ‘Architecture’ as it was. The following are some of his experiments.

The following spaces were chosen because they are already considered private or even intimate spaces. So I changed or altered the space to gain feedback on what was necessary for the space to give them those feelings. I observed and documented the case study on a daily basis. I also allowed the participants to engage and respond to the interventions via blog format. It was an effective way to capture responses due to the inherent nature of the space. People were already on computers ready and able to respond. You can read those responses on the page called Intimate Spaces & Familiar Places.

I began to those observation begin to shape my own design interventions.

The general consensus from the observations and the user responses was a desire for security and control. Specifically security from outside forces natural or unnatural and the control aspect is in respect to a persons’ anonymity. As stated before anonymity is one of Westin’s states of privacy. When a person has the ability to control the amount of awareness of their identity and or presence they have reach a level of ‘anonymousness.’ But all of this is only based on the person’s perception of these things. So essentially their is only a need for a very minimal amount of intervention. So I had to “Kill my darling” meaning let go of the idea of building a bench, seat, table or even structure. Although thse things may illustrate my findings they are in opposition to what I had  found in research, readings, and observations.  I had to get back to what the metaphysical readings were all about, the immaterial!

So in light of this breakthrough I had my new supposition.

After re-focusing the lens I headed back out to the field but only as an observer and data analyst. I chose four case studies in the local Center City Philadelphia area. Rittenhouse square park was chosen, because it is such a open public space that has no specific function other than providing green space. There is no official program dictated over the space. Allowing for multi-use to flow. The Shops at Liberty Place were chosen because there are two programs in place, even though it is an un-official public space, eating and shopping.

Rittenhouse Square Park

The Shops @ Liberty Place

The Hamilton Hall Steps were next on the list because it is actually private property and reserved for students and faculty however it is outside and ‘open’ to the public therefore allowing interesting phenomena to take place. Lastly the Barnes and Noble was chosen because it is the least public a public space can be. It it a private business open to the public and it even contains another private business, Starbucks, which add another level or ‘publicness’ to the space. There also is an understood behavior programmed into both the bookstore and the coffee shop. Which only sweetens the deal.

The Step @ Hamilton Hall: 320 Broad St.

Starbucks in Barnes and Noble on Rittenhouse

So I mapped all the observations to look at them as a whole and in relation to one another.

After all that observing I realized something that opened a new door this project. From the beginning I wanted to create intimate space, and then recognized that this or these object(s) should not be about permanence. Those moments that I plotted were the key to what this project wanted to be.

I needed to establish a brand to create a cohesive group of interventions based upon each moment of opportiunity. I chose to play off of a standard within the American architectural arena. The AIA is an institution devoted excellence among those who create and construct permanent edifices. However, If you take the institute of the equation, the architecture no longer is about a building rather the behaviors and relationships between people.

How I am redefining Architecture

The first intervention ‘Eating Out’ was based on everyone’s love for eating outdoors. It’s your lunch hour and the weather is nice, so why not take lunch outside. The park is a little crowded and you want to mark your spot. So you take out your pocket square and set up for lunch. This piece comes in two sizes, A 2’x 2’ scarf marked for two and a handkerchief for one measuring 16.5”x 16.5”.

Scarf Version

Eat Out in the comfort of your surroundings

The second intervention is for those who like to work alone in public. Working in public spaces can be difficult sometimes. Trying to claim a certain spot or attain a certain level of privacy. Let people know your working with the ‘I’m Working Here Series’.

I'm Working Here Series

Grab your little piece of work nirvana

The third intervention is called the P.D.A.A. Parasol (Personal Display of Affection or Altercation). PDAs are already a public thing but sometimes you may want to filter how public it actually is. Sometimes a couple might not want to share everything with a public audience. For example when you want a affectionate moment or you want to throw down, pop up the parasol to separate yourselves from viewers.

The P.D.A.A. Parasol

Have your personal moment on us!

‘Outside the Conference Room’ is for those informal or formal meetings that can happen anywhere. Meetings can start anywhere, sometimes in the office other times in your local cafe. No matter where usually coffee is involved. So if the coffee is always present why not utilize the opportunity to let people know don’t bother us.

Outside the Conference Room

Suprise meeting, "you get the coffee I'll get the cozies"

The Complete Aw/oA family

If you made it this far I would like to thank you for sticking in there until the end. And to all the architects out there this is in no way an attack on you or your profession. Without the architecture that these objects exist in they would mean nothing.  If you are interested in speakimg more about the project please email me at bmurraydesigns@gmail.com. Also please be courteous to remember that I am sharing this information with you but any kind of reproduction is strictly prohibited thank you.