Personally, this reading was very difficult to get through. It wasn’t that it was confusing, it was just that to me, it didn’t grab my interest. To me, it seemed as if the author had a lot of good points, but the flow of the reading was just really somewhat choppy. But this is just me.

I understand his notion of using art in order to grab audience’s attention towards a detail not seen or thought of. However, as I said almost countless times in most of the critiques of readings, the word needs to be clearly defined.  What does he mean by ‘art’? Does he mean by way of thinking of a problem in another direction as art does most times? Does he mean using art to create something physical for users to see rather than just being conceptual? Is it by way of problem framing? Or is it just by the standards of the Showroom? Does he mean as a whole (which I doubt since he disclaimed designing as an art rather than for pointing out a problem). What part of art does he want design to take root at? Even though I saw examples such as with Dunne and Raby where he praised them for doing critical design from an artistic standpoint, however he still failed to dissect the big ‘why’ for going for critical design.  We understand why it is that Dunne and Raby love critical design, but my question is what is the author’s reason for advocating for art so strongly? The only quote that I felt came close to answering this question is:

“It links research to historically important artistic
movements like Russian constructivism, surrealism,
and pop art. It also links research to Beat literature, architecture,
and music.”

I personally had to stare at this quote for a good 3 minutes before moving on. To me, this is a weak disposition. The author should have included examples of how design when taking this route will be beneficial. This looks pretty on paper, but until the author introduces cold hard facts, that’s all it will be. Pretty words.

One thing that I would applaud the author for the section that says ‘How not to be an artist’. Here he draws a line between what we consider art vs. design. I completely agree with his method of doing this. When one advocates something, it is easy to drift from the original discourse or what the author was trying to say in the first place. He’s telling us to think like an artist, not be an artist. Here, I think he means creating something that is for show rather than something that a person thinks and contemplates on, but again, to avoid confusion and assumptions, he could have easily said, “What I mean by art is…”

Okay reading, but my attention span was going all over the place overall.