Business that regard change as opportunity will thrive in the green economy. Some of the essential values that business will need to have are anticipation. Like by embracing the advances in efficiency, while those who don’t will find themselves wasting money and struggling with regulations. Transparency the making of corporate behavior visible so as consumers we are becoming more and more aware of the goods we buy and the companies who sell them. So companies should see this as a way to let people know the good of there product instead of trying to cover up the bad. Think long-term or connecting long-term to the near-term. Investing in change will pay of in the long run. Vision, what kind of business are you really in? If your company is built of off a single resource and that resource runs out your in trouble. Business that embrace these new realities will be the ones that last and grow.
Marian Perez World Changing response #3 ADP III 11/6/09
The section I read this week was “StarSight”. StarSight is a combination of a streetlight, solar panel, and wireless networking. It is a low-cost and low-maintenance way to provide public lighting. I think this street lamp is great! Street lamps are very common everywhere these days but the energy they use does accumulate and is not taken into account. They would help the public a lot by providing good light and hookups to charge phones while conserving energy. The designers even want to put disaster-warning systems in the StarSight, which I think would defiantly help out in places at risks of tsunamis and flooding to alert the public of safe grounds. In Detroit, New York, and even Mexico City, these street lamps would improve the environment by keeping shady areas bright and safe while not being as wasteful. I especially like the name, the word star made me think of a cool type of outer space light. (pg. 304)
This week I choose to read “The Polar Doomsday Vault”. On a Norwegian island there is a reinforced concrete vault containing seeds of food crops the human race relies on. It is suppose to hold 2 million seeds and protects them from natural disasters and catastrophes of war. What I liked a lot was how the vault is one of the most successful seed banks to this day that is naturally cooled and secured. While reading this, I remembered a speaker from last semester that mentioned this vault; his talk was boring. I even thought the guy was being pessimistic in expressing the important of saving seeds. But having read this along with the other readings for this class has made me really appreciate this effort in conserving food supplies and seeds for the future. Storms are getting worse and are causing more damage; some seeds are already extinct and were not conserved in a seed bank. The fact the vault does not consume energy, or is hurting the environment while being very efficient in its purpose, is even more amazing. (pg. 73)
The section I want to talk about is “doing the right thing can be delicious”. I think that the last thing Americans are usually worried about is food. We produce so much food it is ridiculous. We are often ridiculed by other countries for being fat, or even obese, we have an abundance of heart problems associated with our over-eating, we binge ourselves on fast food daily, and most of us have never had to worry about going hungry a day in our lives. But what so many of us over-consumers don’t see is the starving children in our own backyard. If the USA produces over twice the needed daily caloric intake, then why are children starving to death everyday? This seems so unnecessary to me. With such an abundance of food, you would think it would be easy to get some of that to the 852 million that go hungry every year. When I started working in the law club here at U of M, I was appalled by the amount of food they threw away at the end of each meal. How difficult would it be to just donate some of it to a nearby shelter, rather than toss all of it? Heck, give some to me and I’ll share it with some homeless person down State. We’re just so incredibly wasteful. I do not even want to worry about how our culture needs to “rededicate and rediscover ourselves through the pursuit of pleasure through food” (p.51) when there are so many people who don’t get to eat at all. I feel like there are much bigger issues here than us losing our food culture to fast food.
In the book World Changing, I read the section about “Giving.” The section talked about ways of giving, how, and how it helps others. When I lived in New York, there were many beggars on the subway and around the city. Some people would give change and some didn’t. I would always only give food if I had any, because I’m not sure what this person will buy if I give him/her money. And I thought, everyone needs food so it works out. The book was talking more on a global level of helping other countries and such, but I believe we should help ourselves before helping others. It may sound selfish, but if one can’t afford to help themselves then there is no reason why this person could give to others. Then I believe once this person has enough for themselves, to start locally, to give to their people of their cities, state, country, then start giving from there. Obviously there are plenty of people of who have MORE than enough but choose not to help others. I believe that for a person to truly care about another person enough to try to help them, is that they have gone through the same experience, something close to it, or just has enough sympathy. So I guess I wish this section talked more about helping within our own community first because there are plenty of people suffering around us.
I among many really love political art. Political art meaning to me current arguments that mean something to others. My work is about animal rights mainly, so I really respond to others who have just as strong of an idea or opinion. Whenever I see something as clever as Banksy’s work, I get very excited. I’m not a designer, but I’m very interested in how it works. Design is crucial to a lot of protest art because you want to get it noticed. I just bought a book called “Design it yourself” by Ellen Lupton, a MICA graduate, and there is a chapter about how to design flyers and business cards creatively so people will actually remember you. I believe using clever ways to communicate with others is more effective then some powerpoint or poster.
In World Changing, I had a problem with the producer responsibility article within the stuff section. Producers do need to think about design much more closely today than previously with the public eye shifting toward the environment and environmental incentives. However, the examples that the book gave did not seem that they were that effective as well as environmentally friendly. Although they gave examples of products that could be disassembled easily, that doesn’t irradiate the fact that there are toxic chemicals within those products, and the production of them is very detrimental to the environment. They also were belittling the e-waste problem in Asia. Although I would in now way consider myself an expert on e-waste, I would argue that although some companies are taking back products to recycle them and Europe is developing laws for companies to fallow, there is still a major issue with e-waste. A report published August 2009 from 60 minutes focused on the issue Asia had with companies sending electronics there to be “recycled”. The products were being disassembled by hand and the precious metals extracted. The process releases toxins, carcinogens, and causes the people living in those areas to become sick and polluted. Not to mention the environment around them. The design for repair I thought was the most effective way that a company can make a positive environmental impact. Product design where the product will not become obsolete, and repairs will be made on the object if sent back to the company will limit new production of goods, consumption, and use of materials. It will begin to instill in us the importance of fixing materials, and reusing, and the constant desire to have the newest and latest will disappear. I also agreed with the idea of very simple product design. The more simple and easier the product is to take apart, the easier it is to fix a product by you. The book used an example of a complex office chair compared to a simply designed one. There is a theme of having the consumer become aware of what they’re purchasing as well. Within the stuff chapter there continues to be a call for awareness and knowledge on the part of the consumer in order to have green products succeed. For example, in the knowing what’s green section, people need to be aware that what their purchasing really is green and up to the standards the company says it is, rather than just a façade of being green. Also in the producer responsibility, which focuses on the producer, people need to continue to be informed to go and buy products that are simply designed, will be taken back and recycled by a company, or repaired for free.
When reading the protest section within the politics chapter, the first thing that came to my mind was that many protest art is like terrorism. I was then pleasantly surprised when I saw the term art terrorist in the text, referring to Banksy. I would first like to support this statement; saying that a generally accepted definition for terrorism is violent acts committed by people outside governments toward non-governmental citizens/corporations to raise a voice for a political issue/injustice. Many people who commit acts of terrorism are parts of small groups and do so because it’s cheap and very effective. Although I would consider Banksy to be more of a freedom fighter and hero rather than a terrorist, I think that many of the concepts and ideas he’s criticizing frighten a lot of people. It’s the same with culture jamming, to art students, liberals, people who are educated, creative, environmentally conscious… these acts are seen as heroic. However, to the companies they’re targeting they are seen as dangerous and frightening. What makes this art so successful is the recognizable advertisements and images that the culture jammers use, and the juxtaposition of the message. It’s plainly obvious, inexpensive, and accessible to the masses. These messages today are even more effective because of the use of the computer. Things can be created rather cheaply and look polished while remaining simple enough for every day people to create. Also, the Internet helps culture jammers with the ability to get their information to spread rapidly and widely.
After reading the section on Branding, I’m not sure if I agree with all of the author’s words. I’m slightly biased because I have a unique interest in corporations and capitalism in general; however, I don’t see Muji or Blackspot as being that affective or solving anything dire. With Blackspot, it’s a cool concept, but one that contradicts itself. To create a shoe called the Blackspot that is called the Blackspot but allows you to draw a logo on the side is still a brand. They are taking advantage of a person’s creative side to create heart strong brand, but a brand nonetheless. The reason we have brands often times is to differentiate between quality. Even though someone might buy a shoe from Aldo and pay $120 for it and they could buy another dress shoe from Meijer and pay half, the Aldo shoe is still much better quality because you end up paying more for the product. There would also be no point for someone to make money and want to succeed if all they were able to buy is the same low-end product as everyone else. Although Blackspot is a cool idea, it is definitely not an anti-brand. Overall, I see anti-advertisement as an advertisement that negates other advertisement but still accomplishes the exact same goal as a regular advertisement does.
The other day in my printmaking class John Hart, a young mechanical engineering professor came and spoke to our class about his 6 years graduate and postgraduate studies with carbon nanotubes. He gave a fascinating presentation about what they are, how they are made, what they have been used for and how they can be used in the future. He showed us very intricate images taken from a scanning electron microscope of the nanotubes and even brought an example for us to examine in a small Petri dish. He explained that he is able to manipulate the growth of the nanotubes by placing the catalyst on specific places on the substrate (the plate, often made of silicon, that the carbon nano tubes can grow off of). In essence, the process is similar to creating a microscopic stencil. We got to look at the creation he called “Nanobama” because he created a stencil that resembled Shepard Fairey’s image of Obama. There is nearly unlimited potential for nanotube application at this point, for both good and bad. At the molecular level they are stronger than steel however, their natural growing pattern allows for a great deal air space between the strands and we could crush it with our finger. However, Hart and his colleagues have found a way to manipulate the nanotubes with liquid which condenses on the surface, gets absorbed into the nanotubes, pulling them closer, and when the water is evaporated the nanotubes are left denser and stronger than before.
Thriving in a Bright Green Economy
ReplyDeleteBusiness that regard change as opportunity will thrive in the green economy. Some of the essential values that business will need to have are anticipation. Like by embracing the advances in efficiency, while those who don’t will find themselves wasting money and struggling with regulations. Transparency the making of corporate behavior visible so as consumers we are becoming more and more aware of the goods we buy and the companies who sell them. So companies should see this as a way to let people know the good of there product instead of trying to cover up the bad. Think long-term or connecting long-term to the near-term. Investing in change will pay of in the long run. Vision, what kind of business are you really in? If your company is built of off a single resource and that resource runs out your in trouble. Business that embrace these new realities will be the ones that last and grow.
Marian Perez
ReplyDeleteWorld Changing response #3
ADP III
11/6/09
The section I read this week was “StarSight”. StarSight is a combination of a streetlight, solar panel, and wireless networking. It is a low-cost and low-maintenance way to provide public lighting. I think this street lamp is great! Street lamps are very common everywhere these days but the energy they use does accumulate and is not taken into account. They would help the public a lot by providing good light and hookups to charge phones while conserving energy. The designers even want to put disaster-warning systems in the StarSight, which I think would defiantly help out in places at risks of tsunamis and flooding to alert the public of safe grounds. In Detroit, New York, and even Mexico City, these street lamps would improve the environment by keeping shady areas bright and safe while not being as wasteful. I especially like the name, the word star made me think of a cool type of outer space light. (pg. 304)
Marian Perez
ReplyDeleteWorld Changing response #4
ADP III
This week I choose to read “The Polar Doomsday Vault”. On a Norwegian island there is a reinforced concrete vault containing seeds of food crops the human race relies on. It is suppose to hold 2 million seeds and protects them from natural disasters and catastrophes of war. What I liked a lot was how the vault is one of the most successful seed banks to this day that is naturally cooled and secured. While reading this, I remembered a speaker from last semester that mentioned this vault; his talk was boring. I even thought the guy was being pessimistic in expressing the important of saving seeds. But having read this along with the other readings for this class has made me really appreciate this effort in conserving food supplies and seeds for the future. Storms are getting worse and are causing more damage; some seeds are already extinct and were not conserved in a seed bank. The fact the vault does not consume energy, or is hurting the environment while being very efficient in its purpose, is even more amazing. (pg. 73)
Brijit Spencer
ReplyDeleteADP III
World Changing
11.10.09
The section I want to talk about is “doing the right thing can be delicious”. I think that the last thing Americans are usually worried about is food. We produce so much food it is ridiculous. We are often ridiculed by other countries for being fat, or even obese, we have an abundance of heart problems associated with our over-eating, we binge ourselves on fast food daily, and most of us have never had to worry about going hungry a day in our lives. But what so many of us over-consumers don’t see is the starving children in our own backyard. If the USA produces over twice the needed daily caloric intake, then why are children starving to death everyday? This seems so unnecessary to me. With such an abundance of food, you would think it would be easy to get some of that to the 852 million that go hungry every year. When I started working in the law club here at U of M, I was appalled by the amount of food they threw away at the end of each meal. How difficult would it be to just donate some of it to a nearby shelter, rather than toss all of it? Heck, give some to me and I’ll share it with some homeless person down State. We’re just so incredibly wasteful. I do not even want to worry about how our culture needs to “rededicate and rediscover ourselves through the pursuit of pleasure through food” (p.51) when there are so many people who don’t get to eat at all. I feel like there are much bigger issues here than us losing our food culture to fast food.
Anita Sidler
ReplyDeleteWorld 1: Giving
In the book World Changing, I read the section about “Giving.” The section talked about ways of giving, how, and how it helps others. When I lived in New York, there were many beggars on the subway and around the city. Some people would give change and some didn’t. I would always only give food if I had any, because I’m not sure what this person will buy if I give him/her money. And I thought, everyone needs food so it works out. The book was talking more on a global level of helping other countries and such, but I believe we should help ourselves before helping others. It may sound selfish, but if one can’t afford to help themselves then there is no reason why this person could give to others. Then I believe once this person has enough for themselves, to start locally, to give to their people of their cities, state, country, then start giving from there. Obviously there are plenty of people of who have MORE than enough but choose not to help others. I believe that for a person to truly care about another person enough to try to help them, is that they have gone through the same experience, something close to it, or just has enough sympathy. So I guess I wish this section talked more about helping within our own community first because there are plenty of people suffering around us.
World 2: Protest Art
ReplyDeleteI among many really love political art. Political art meaning to me current arguments that mean something to others. My work is about animal rights mainly, so I really respond to others who have just as strong of an idea or opinion. Whenever I see something as clever as Banksy’s work, I get very excited. I’m not a designer, but I’m very interested in how it works. Design is crucial to a lot of protest art because you want to get it noticed. I just bought a book called “Design it yourself” by Ellen Lupton, a MICA graduate, and there is a chapter about how to design flyers and business cards creatively so people will actually remember you. I believe using clever ways to communicate with others is more effective then some powerpoint or poster.
In World Changing, I had a problem with the producer responsibility article within the stuff section. Producers do need to think about design much more closely today than previously with the public eye shifting toward the environment and environmental incentives. However, the examples that the book gave did not seem that they were that effective as well as environmentally friendly. Although they gave examples of products that could be disassembled easily, that doesn’t irradiate the fact that there are toxic chemicals within those products, and the production of them is very detrimental to the environment. They also were belittling the e-waste problem in Asia. Although I would in now way consider myself an expert on e-waste, I would argue that although some companies are taking back products to recycle them and Europe is developing laws for companies to fallow, there is still a major issue with e-waste. A report published August 2009 from 60 minutes focused on the issue Asia had with companies sending electronics there to be “recycled”. The products were being disassembled by hand and the precious metals extracted. The process releases toxins, carcinogens, and causes the people living in those areas to become sick and polluted. Not to mention the environment around them.
ReplyDeleteThe design for repair I thought was the most effective way that a company can make a positive environmental impact. Product design where the product will not become obsolete, and repairs will be made on the object if sent back to the company will limit new production of goods, consumption, and use of materials. It will begin to instill in us the importance of fixing materials, and reusing, and the constant desire to have the newest and latest will disappear.
I also agreed with the idea of very simple product design. The more simple and easier the product is to take apart, the easier it is to fix a product by you. The book used an example of a complex office chair compared to a simply designed one.
There is a theme of having the consumer become aware of what they’re purchasing as well. Within the stuff chapter there continues to be a call for awareness and knowledge on the part of the consumer in order to have green products succeed. For example, in the knowing what’s green section, people need to be aware that what their purchasing really is green and up to the standards the company says it is, rather than just a façade of being green. Also in the producer responsibility, which focuses on the producer, people need to continue to be informed to go and buy products that are simply designed, will be taken back and recycled by a company, or repaired for free.
When reading the protest section within the politics chapter, the first thing that came to my mind was that many protest art is like terrorism. I was then pleasantly surprised when I saw the term art terrorist in the text, referring to Banksy. I would first like to support this statement; saying that a generally accepted definition for terrorism is violent acts committed by people outside governments toward non-governmental citizens/corporations to raise a voice for a political issue/injustice. Many people who commit acts of terrorism are parts of small groups and do so because it’s cheap and very effective. Although I would consider Banksy to be more of a freedom fighter and hero rather than a terrorist, I think that many of the concepts and ideas he’s criticizing frighten a lot of people. It’s the same with culture jamming, to art students, liberals, people who are educated, creative, environmentally conscious… these acts are seen as heroic. However, to the companies they’re targeting they are seen as dangerous and frightening.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes this art so successful is the recognizable advertisements and images that the culture jammers use, and the juxtaposition of the message. It’s plainly obvious, inexpensive, and accessible to the masses. These messages today are even more effective because of the use of the computer. Things can be created rather cheaply and look polished while remaining simple enough for every day people to create. Also, the Internet helps culture jammers with the ability to get their information to spread rapidly and widely.
After reading the section on Branding, I’m not sure if I agree with all of the author’s words. I’m slightly biased because I have a unique interest in corporations and capitalism in general; however, I don’t see Muji or Blackspot as being that affective or solving anything dire. With Blackspot, it’s a cool concept, but one that contradicts itself. To create a shoe called the Blackspot that is called the Blackspot but allows you to draw a logo on the side is still a brand. They are taking advantage of a person’s creative side to create heart strong brand, but a brand nonetheless. The reason we have brands often times is to differentiate between quality. Even though someone might buy a shoe from Aldo and pay $120 for it and they could buy another dress shoe from Meijer and pay half, the Aldo shoe is still much better quality because you end up paying more for the product. There would also be no point for someone to make money and want to succeed if all they were able to buy is the same low-end product as everyone else. Although Blackspot is a cool idea, it is definitely not an anti-brand. Overall, I see anti-advertisement as an advertisement that negates other advertisement but still accomplishes the exact same goal as a regular advertisement does.
ReplyDeleteNano technology
ReplyDeleteThe other day in my printmaking class John Hart, a young mechanical engineering professor came and spoke to our class about his 6 years graduate and postgraduate studies with carbon nanotubes. He gave a fascinating presentation about what they are, how they are made, what they have been used for and how they can be used in the future. He showed us very intricate images taken from a scanning electron microscope of the nanotubes and even brought an example for us to examine in a small Petri dish. He explained that he is able to manipulate the growth of the nanotubes by placing the catalyst on specific places on the substrate (the plate, often made of silicon, that the carbon nano tubes can grow off of). In essence, the process is similar to creating a microscopic stencil. We got to look at the creation he called “Nanobama” because he created a stencil that resembled Shepard Fairey’s image of Obama. There is nearly unlimited potential for nanotube application at this point, for both good and bad. At the molecular level they are stronger than steel however, their natural growing pattern allows for a great deal air space between the strands and we could crush it with our finger. However, Hart and his colleagues have found a way to manipulate the nanotubes with liquid which condenses on the surface, gets absorbed into the nanotubes, pulling them closer, and when the water is evaporated the nanotubes are left denser and stronger than before.