After having adviser meetings in week8, I started thinking about developing a methodology using what I have so far. One is the question of “why people can’t accept imperfection in technology” and the other is “how can we avoid the uncanny valley while causing empathy using objects.”

I came to a conclusion of trying out “thinking from the perspective of technology” and try to design pieces of technology that would look at “imperfect” things in this world and empathize with them. We’ve been trying to empathize with technology but how about turning the table around for a change? Would technology inconvenience the user for the benefit of himself? is man-made nature as natural as nature?

*image explanation

left to right: people, animals, plants, nature, technology

top to bottom: albinoism, imbalance, birthmarks, miniaturism, paranoia, personification

I feel a bit more confused than before and felt the need to visualize some of the thoughts I had in mind.

Black hole= The uncanniness that can come out of technological misuse. Then what is on the opposite side of this?

Here’s a clock that’s missing the “minute” hand.
The “hour” hand lets you know the approximate hour and minute and the “second” hand lets you know that it’s still “alive” and going.

My original goal was to cause emotional stirs but taking parts out of objects. In this case, the minute hand is a physical piece which also has a functional reason of existence. It did seem like people stopped and stood there just to stare at the clock for a while but in the end, the comment I got was that this was a “minimalistic” approach of designing, which is different from “being able to accept imperfection in technology.”

There are different types of defects in objects I’ve been tampering with.

1. Natural born defects vs. Wear and tear over time.

2. Physical defects vs. functional defects.

3. Defects that are naturally made vs. Defects as designed uniqueness.

.                                                                (gimmicks or minimalism)

* imperfection, not something that is “badly designed”

I’ve got a chance to talk to Norman Klein today about my current place in the thesis process. He mentioned that the idea of imperfection seems work well with the early enlightenment era and the idea of rebelling against the rigid, the perfect.

What really made me think was not his technical or reference advice, but a rather soothing, somewhat fatherly advice. He said that it feels like my direction, the introduction of “imperfection” to the completely utilitarian world of technology is interesting because I am attempting to slow down vision. He feels like I should be able to “forgive myself” and let myself to experience errors because imperfection is about the “generosity of the spirit.” Mentioning that if I can’t do that, I’d be a real hypocrite. Letting myself hear that from someone really helped me.

He also said that the idea of imperfection is so specific that now it seems a little too broad, and suggested me to use it as an umbrella concept and come up with two to three nuances relating to my view of imperfection. He also mentioned that I should find a couple of working methods by doing experiments—looking for “workable” ideas, even if they are not perfect ones. What are some workable methods I could adapt? I’ve so far been just “clarifying concepts through making” and then taking a step back and look at it. Now that I think about it, the button+wall clock experiment seems a little un-done. Maybe I could take another go at it and introduce flavors of “imperfection in technology aiding emotional effects.”

Yeah, I could start with that.

My reflection right after the initial 5-week-long tease-out phase. Can I look at these three sections and see a convergent area with “communication between people and technology”?