What do those answers point to? You have to make a lot of shit if you want to create something of significance. The attempt is to “clever” your way to a solution without cranking out a lot of work. You need to give a shit about what you do. Need to make your work personal. In this time of focus groups and user testing, with the tyranny of the user going on, I think we’re starting to commoditize creativity and turning ourselves into problem solving machines and innovation specialists. Forgetting there’s a reason they called us in the first place. The students able to find a place that was personal not only were more successful but they had a lot more fun. Don’t work on shit jobs, only create artifacts and services of value. If you look at the work, you can see that the students who didn’t buy into the original brief, who said no, it was a dumb idea, and broadened it leading to websites and the New York Times, which extended the conversation to millions of people and animals – they’ve found a place in the design problem, exercised value as a designer, positive change. This is something you can deliberately do. You know when you have a shit job. One of the ways you can restore value is to make it shittier. Playing in that area, you can find something for your organization to be proud of. Don’t shit where you eat. We must use the lens of sustainability, talking to enough people to understand that the artifacts and services we create are parts of ecosystems of culture, environment, and unless we’re using that lens – if we find a project where we can’t find a way we have to say no to it and pay our bills in another way. cause if not, we’re creating more pieces of shit.
The full video of this talk will be published soon here: psfktv.blip.tv