You can view all the recorded video streams from the Art Center Global Dialogues: Disruptive Thinking event here.

Art Center Global Dialogues Video Stream Archives (all Dialogues)

Art Center Global Dialogues: Disruptive Thinking - Introductions

Dialogue on Climate Change
Dialogue on Geopolitcs
Dialogue on Business
Dialogue on Science
Dialogue on Belief
Dialogue on Design

I felt like design—as the final dialogue and the core focus of the organization sponsoring the dialogues—should have been the capstone of the whole event. However, the dialogue was scattered, focusing primarily on whether or not beauty exists, and whether permanence or impermanence should be a focus of designers’ work. The coming disruptions in industrial design, architecture, and planning and how they would affect our lives were to be discussed, but this question was never even recognized, much less addressed.

As the question was kicked around, I’m going to weigh-in: in my opinion, beauty exists. Personally, my definition of beauty has to do with not only what a thing looks like, but what it does, and how it does it. This applies to people as well. I have known numerous people who were favored with good physical aesthetics but were base, ugly people in how they conducted their lives; I would never associate the term “beauty” with them. The same is true of designed objects. Whether or not “smarter” or “better” designers are concerned with this is irrelevant to me; it exists and matters to me. It is one of my primary considerations as a designer.

On impermanence and permanence, I think it’s a less useful question than this: does the object participate in all ways within a larger scheme or system. It was briefly mentioned that nature is closed-loop; it re-absorbs and re-tasks elements. Human beings have very few things that qualify as “permanent.” In fact, I don’t know that there’s much in the world that can truly be classified as such. It’s more a matter of comparative lifespans. The more useful question is is the object in question a component within a closed-loop lifecycle. Otherwise, the question of permanence vs. impermanence is really just an ego trip, which designers should really get off of.

BELIEF

This was a dialogue that I was very much looking forward to, but unfortunately I feel like it didn’t develop.  I was impressed with Dr. Pasternak for starting out by defending religious belief and stating his desire to see reconciliation between religion and science.  I felt that some of the discussion was underdeveloped though.  Dr. Pasternak stated at one point that the particular belief didn’t matter, only that an individual believed in something strongly.  Perhaps he didn’t have sufficient time to fully present his thinking or didn’t feel to establish his baseline assumptions, but I found this statement somewhat disturbing in its amorality.  For example, is there no difference then between a monk and a Nazi?  Both believe in something strongly, but anyone (save Nazi’s) would agree there is an astronomical qualitative difference between what these individuals believe and what those beliefs would both allow and even encourage them to do.  Based on Dr. Pasternak’s participation, I don’t think he would disagree with this line of reasoning, but the face that there was no clarification on the point was disappointing. 

The core questions to be addressed in this dialogue were: Is belief — in God, gods, ideologies or ourselves — the force that ultimately drives us and designs our lives? If so, what happens when our deepest beliefs are overturned? What are the greatest disruptions to our belief systems that are on the horizon? Will they make the world more or less bearable?  Unfortunately, this dialogue did not really address these questions with any specificity.  I believe that these are relevant questions and I do believe that our beliefs are what drive us, in very specific ways as well as general ways.   Our beliefs inform our how we interpret the raw experiences that we have, enabling us to determine meaning for them and to use them guide our future decisions and actions.  Many of the problems that we see in the world are not caused by belief or even the clash of belief, but in our failure to truly abide by our beliefs, be they religious, philosophical, scientific, or otherwise.

I found Mr. Hughes’s comments to be the most relevant, not only to science but to human experience on the whole.  His statement on ignorance and humility are something that all of us need to hear and heed.  Science is good at telling us “how” but that only to a limited extent, and never “why” which I think is the question that matters more to most people.  It is good that continue to seek new information and better explanations, but unfortunately, we don’t exhibit much humility with what we already understand or in light of our even greater lack of understanding.  Too often we either are self-aggrandizing in our knowledge and understanding or self-deprecating in our ignorance.  We need to strike a balance, appreciating what we have discovered, but also exhibiting a healthy reservation about what we do know and honesty about what we don’t. 

I found Dr. Saquet’s comments to be very insightful.  His delineation between incremental innovation and transformational innovation was particularly relevant.  Innovation is a much kicked-about term that while popular and hip, is unfortunately largely not understood.  The idea of qualifying it is excellent in my opinion and it speaks to a larger strategic view of activity.  Dr. Saquet also seemed to suggest that innovation is something that can be studied and to some degree taught, but in practice can’t really be controlled or “bottled.”  His descriptions of “strange people” operating in the boundaries of an organization were both amusing and, I feel, accurate.  There are some things in life that can be encouraged, sought after, and to some degree nurtured or cultivated, but ultimately are wild things that must be allowed to run by instinct.  They can be chased, but not leashed.  Innovation may be one of those things…

From his comments, I feel that the best way to achieve innovated practices is not to try to innovate, but to create an environment in which innovation can occur…and then let it run.  And on the “kindler, gentler business” theme, if you look at the few number of companies who make it priority 1 to operate ethically and be good citizens, you’ll notice they tend to have strong balance sheets.  Those two things aren’t disconnected.  Much like innovation, I think the best way to succeed is not to try to succeed, but to be the best people you can and do the best work you can...and success follows.

Richard Addis started out by saying that politics is about leadership, but the discussion progressed to criticizing government and suggesting that politicians be “done away with.” I found this odd, for it considered with Mr. Addis’s first statement, it would seem he was saying do away with leaders. We need leader, now of all times, but leaders in a true, not titular, sense. I don’t think that was Mr. Addis’s intent, but not clarifying it was a mistake I think. The feeling in the room quickly moved to merely criticizing government in general and the rhetorical question “Have you ever seen a politician do any good?” which I found a bit galling. While I see plenty of failings in politicians and political systems on the whole, I have seen individual politicians do great good in the world. I have never seen a perfect politician, but that’s because they’re all human beings. I think it sad to dismiss ANY good a person has done, just because they haven’t done ALL good.

I also took exception to Mr. Addis’s suggestion to “abolish all armies.” We live in a world populated by human beings, which is to say imperfect creatures. We are capable of great good, but also prone to weakness and evil. My mother raised me to stand up to bullies and I believe it’s a good principle. Perhaps it’s an understatement to call the war criminals, mass murderers, warlords, and tyrants of the world “bullies” but on the world-scale, that’s what they are. And on the scale that their atrocities exist, military action is one justifiable response. How will we stand up to the bullies of the world without armies?

I do not suggest that current political systems or their officers are perfect. I do not suggest that the tactics of militaries or the manner in which military groups are applied is perfect or even always justifiable. What I do suggest is that leadership is vital, at this time more than ever, and that armies are needed. We need leaders, but ones who are honorable and humble, who will represent the best of what we are, and execute our collective tenets to the best of their ability. We need armies, but ones who are mobilized as a last resort in-line with a strategy of discretion, tolerance, and patience, whose tactics are as merciful and intelligent as possible, and who will be disengaged as soon as possible. We need to re-think the entire idea of what an army can be. Militaries in a justifiable incarnation are defenders and protectors. We need to re-imagine what it means to defend and protect and how these can be accomplished. Violence and death need not be the sum of its existence. It was once said that we sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. Perhaps you agree with this; perhaps not. Perhaps we need to revise that thought. I like to think that one of the beauties of design is that it looks and finds the most elegant solution to a challenge. Violence is a means of protecting the helpless, and while it can be effective, it is definitely not the most elegant—or the only—option. What matters is that the helpless are defended and protected.

Again, the core questions were not really addressed: Are there any political ideas so radically disruptive that they could redesign for the better the way the great powers run the world? Can political ideas solve anything? Or are we doomed to a permanent state of violent flux? I believe the answers to these are yes, yes, and no. Mr. Tabaire presented the seed of a radical idea that was left untouched: developed countries, on the whole, face less life-threatening situations than undeveloped ones. Development starts with education. What then, of any army whose primary strategy is preemptive action and whose primary tactic is education?

I think the most relevant comment I heard throughout the dialogue came early.  The question of doing more and being more creative with less was right on in my opinion.  I think that would not only address climate change, but a host of other issues as well.

One thing that was not addressed was the initial question “Can the threat and reality of climate change be an inspiration to redesign the way we live?” and I think the answer is undeniably YES.  The human race is often at its best when the chips are down and honestly, we rarely make significant changes until we have to…and we have to.

Joined by Blaise Aguera y Arcas, Chris Lefteri, and Thom Mayne

Stephen: The man who invented the adhesive for post-it notes once said “If I knew what I was doing, it wouldn’t be research.”  We’re here to close the day by talking about design.  Tom, where do your ideas come from?

Tom: It’s part of our process, we interrogate the broad problem.  Architecture has changed over the past decade from something viewed merely as a structure to component in a broader environment.

Stephen: Any act of creativity is by nature disruptive, it makes something new.

Tom: I missed the session on belief and these days we only have provisional narratives, so we have no basis.

Stephen: do you believe there is standard of perfection?

Tom: No.  Through what cultural lens?  I feel that beauty is no longer interesting to most architects.

Stephen: If beauty doesn’t exist then ugliness doesn’t exist.  Do you agree?

Tom: I remember seeing the lunar lander as a kid, and it was sort of awkward thing.  It went from point A to point B over a vast distance.  To me, that’s very interesting, it had capability.  Is that beautiful?  I rather think of whether or not our objects have intelligence.

Stephen: Chris, what role do mistakes play in your work?

Chris: Everyone talks about how they get into design and I was a destructive doer, I took things apart, and that’s what I do on a daily basis, either metaphorically or physically.

Stephen: It’s been said that even destruction is a creative act.  Blaise, what role do mistakes play in your work?

Blaise: We are a part of nature, and we make the mistake of pretending that we’re not, and we know a lot about systems, and equilibrium, and how niches are formed, and how disruptions occur.  We see habitat destruction occur both naturally and synthetically.  the landscape is changing very fast and we see an acceleration occurring and associated punctuations.  I think what makes for a powerful disruptive idea is that a possibility opens up that in turn opens up more possibilities.

S: Regardless of what you’re making, design holds a contradiction, because you’re making something you think is better, but then you feel that it should have lasting value.

T: We’re looking at challenging notions, and methods that facilitate that.  We produce something, then challenge it in scientific terms.  The solution is provisional.

B: You asked about making something lasting, which I think is interesting and is something of a provocation is and of itself.  Bronzes are fairly permanent, but the vast majority of things humans have made don’t survive.

S: Are we all saying that beauty doesn’t exist?

C: No, I disagree.  I think that the idea of impermanence/permanence is interesting.  We’re not driven by experience, by brand.  I don’t think the object’s beauty is the driver anymore.

B: We have a very strange relationship with the idea of permanence and utility.  The founder of World Changing told me that the average time a drill is used over its lifetime is 12 min.  It’s a insane figure.  It’s especially insane that everyone own one.

It’s not just about the 12 min the drill is run, it’s the face that the drill isn’t recycled.  Nature doesn’t work in permanence.

S: Much of what we’ve created is done in opposition to nature.

T: There’s an idea of status or enhancement; the physicality of the thing is secondary.  It’s disconnected from enhancement either in practical terms or otherwise.

S: There’s a more ambitious definition of beauty, that is that if we want to reproduce something, it’s beautiful.   Chris, is beauty a useful concept to you in what you do.

C: No, it’s useful for stories, and extracting things, but I tend to focus more on feeling.

S: Blaise, mathematicians speak of beauty, what is their definition?

B: You’re asking me to make a definition of something that many better philosophers have failed to do. I do find beauty very relevant to everything I do.  It doesn’t matter if it’s beauty of an object or beauty of a process.

T: Beauty tends to be a more personal appreciate of something, but it’s not what I drive a project from.

S: Have you ever been asked to design a beautiful building?

T: Yes, but as an architect I see it more as a structural problem, not just what it looks like.  I see it as part of an evolving process, but the client just sees it just as it is.

B: There’s a trend and you’re not the first architect I’ve heard express this.  It’s this idea of beauty in modern architecture through the application of constraints, and cutting through the crap.

T: It’s parallel to its internal logic and you react to that.  Out of that consistency, it leads you to something we call beauty.

S: If you were a designer 50 years ago, the great challenge would be to design office equipment or a motor car, but designers don’t want to do that.  So what do designers do in an age when the most highly valuable thing—information—is invisible.

C: It’s the experience.  Beauty has been replaced amazing, or cool…

B: Do you say things suck?  That something’s total s**t?

C: Sure.

T: It’s the engagement, something that takes you somewhere.

S: I’d like to bring this to an elegant conclusion, but we have too many diverging opinions!

Q: I would also like to talk about beauty.  My understanding of design is that it has at least two components: it has functionality and it has an aesthetic.  I’m very worried that we’re not allowed to talk about beauty.  If we’re not allowed to talk about it, we can’t talk about how we react to it emotionally and even spiritually.  I would imagine a lot of designers are trying to have an aesthetic in mind, even if it’s not visual.  If we say we don’t have beauty, are we saying that the requirements of design have changed?
A: (Tom) The discussion is how you arrive there.  Yes, it has utility.  Yes, it has an aesthetic.  But it’s the discussion how you arrive at that point, and there’s a group who approach this in a non-a prioi way.  Blaise said that parallel to science as designers you’re interested in the location of your ideas, and today one of the locations is the process by which the result takes place.  I would say that it has very much to do with the internal logic, and quite different from the logic of mathematics.  And from that, you can evaluate it and everyone will disagree.  It’s impossible to evaluate something on its physical terms.  What we can agree with is some of the broader issues that they deal with, the macro, global issues.  Some objects are instilled with certain terms. (Blaise) I think that you’re question is spot-on in some instances.  We I see something, I usually have a visceral reation that says this is good, this is mediocre, this is s**t.  Some people develop this more or only in specific genres.  If you don’t have ability in a certain genre, it’s a failing of your’s.  I think these things are very deep.  And they defy description. (Chris) Education from a visual level doesn’t exist.  We learn how to read and write, but not to evaluate visually.  I think the visual is an element, but not at the top for an object.  Trends are more relevant.  We buy things then replace them because they’re not beautiful or fashionable or trendy.

Q: If I understood you correctly, when you see a design problem and find a solution, you have treated it functionally and aesthetics, but you sat on a comfortable chair and said it was crap?
A: (Tom) I’m not communicating very well.  For a designer, aesthetics are embedded in the question and process from the beginning.  It has to meet its requirements.  I’m looking at things in reverse order, that don’t follow the internal logic.
Q: Is that what you teach your students?
A: You don’t teach students.  You only participate in an inquiry.

Joined by Joann Fletcher and Charles Pasternak

Bigna:

Charles: Some say that religion is a delusion, maligned not benign.  I find that arrogant as well as rubbish.  I hope by the end of the hour to bridge the gap between religious belief and science.  The brain speaks to the rest of the body and the same types of molecules operate in the one as in the other.  When you’re stressed, you experience physiological symptoms.  What I believe is that even belief will manifest themselves physically in the body.  Monks meditating experience increased temperature and decreased blood pressure.

C: If you believe strongly, you have the results physiologically.  Strong belief is a good, positive thing.

J: We can certainly project this back into Egyptian times.  There are many iconic elements within Egyptian culture, but in order to understand what made the Egyptian tick and how they accomplished pyramid building and mummification, we have to understand what their belief systems were.  The ultimate thing is their belief system that allowed them to achieve one of the most magnificent cultures that we know.   It’s an amazing culture to study.

B: The Egyptian art was subject to the practical immediately.

J:  They applied practicality to everything they did, but you can never detach the practical from the ritual with them.  But alongside the practical medical procedures, there was also heavy use of amulets and incantations.  While this may have been placebo, they still combined practical with the ritual.

C: But you can’t discount the placebo effect.  Religion is one of the greatest placebos there is.  It focuses belief to the point of affecting circumstances.

B: You’re traveled extensively.  When you’re studying ancient cultures on-site, can you see the evidence of ancient beliefs in the modern communities?

J: Oh yes, you can definitely see it.  You’re not supposed to say it, but Islam is a veneer in some areas that cover ancient Egyptian beliefs.

C: There’s something to that.  To have the great religions to have survived as long as they have, with successful people being among their believers, and to say they’re all delusional is rubbish.  It’s quite uncalled for with atheists to go on about it.

There are things we can’t explain with current scientific theories about the things we believe in that make us feel better.

B: A pluralism seems to be emerging in religions, maybe because of increased communication.  Does the pluralism make sense to you, is it beneficial?

C: My point early on about the benefit of belief is that it doesn’t actually matter what you believe in, as long as you believe in something very firmly.  There was a delightful book that came out some time back called “The Mapmaker’s Wife” about an expedition sent out to measure the circumference of the Earth and whether it was flatter at the equator than the poles.  To cut a long story short, the scientists went out and one of them married a Peruvian lady.  He left, she stayed behind.  It was a very difficult area to leave, but she eventually followed him, and while many of her companions died, she made it not because she had any particular religious belief, but because she believed she would make it.  In extreme circumstances, people revert to almost a prayer-like mentality.

B: It has been said that if you have a strong belief it must be fought over and defended.  Can there be agreement?

C: Consensus is probably the best that can be achieved.  We shouldn’t be dogmatic and there are doors we should leave open when we’re not sure.

Q: What do you believe are the things that are needed to combat fundamentalism?
A: (Charles) The trouble with fundamentalists that they disbelieve evidence in front of them.  The problem I think with Muslim fundamentalism is that don’t have a pope.  If they had a similar leader, they would be guided away from their negative behavior.  (Joann) Globally I think people should be more respected for their individual beliefs.  Established religions do kind of create religious strangleholds on women; voices need to be heard.

Q: I don’t really believe that meditation has to do with belief as Charles said.  I practice and for me its more about awareness.
A: You may be right.  One of the reasons I think Buddhism is so popular in the West is that it’s more philosophy than religion.  And if there’s so dogma, then there’s no real religious belief.

Q: The placebo effect is a misnomer and I think that we’re really talking about the power of the mind.  That’s what the scientists are really studying, not the power of belief.
A: I agree.  Maybe it should be called the power of the mind not the power of belief.

Q: This conference is about disruptive thinking, but in this hour, I haven’t really heard anything disruptive.
A: There is a disruption in that scientific theory is very objective and including individual beliefs is a breach.

Q: What’s Joann’s most disruptive belief about ancient cultures?
A: It’s not really a belief, it’s a fact, but in Egyptian culture this stranglehold of patriarchal domination and suppression of female roles in the culture.  There were at least 6 women that ruled ancient Egypt as pharaohs.

Q: Not really a question, just some disruptive thinking I’d like to share.  When you say power of belief vs. power of the mind, you’re just being confrontational and trying to dismiss something you don’t understand or can’t verify.
A: Brilliant, I thank you.

Q: I just wanted to ask about the discussion regarding women and I think the whole problem with most issues in the world has to do with men-women relations.  I don’t think it has to do with who has the power, but who has the motivation to put things into motion.
A: Excellent.

Joined by David Orrell, Fotini Markopoulou, David Hughes

Robert: A lot of what you’ve heard about science isn’t true.  3 examples: the human genome project leading to genetic disorder cures (it hasn’t), the Sun being a rather ordinary star (it isn’t), the “big bang” theory (there are holes).  What attracted

David: Started working on particle accelerators, the superconducting supercollider, after I finished my degree in applied mathematics.  Funding got cut, went back to school for a PhD.  Started looking into chaos theory, and eventually found systems biology, which looks at the connections between components rather than trying to reduce everything down to constituents.

Fotini: There were many decisions, I didn’t wake up one day thinking “I want to be a physicist and work on quantum gravity.”  I wasn’t interested in physics until I was 17.  When I did get there, I realized that I wasn’t really interested in textbook physics.  Following the trail of what we don’t understand led me to quantum theory which is essentially a collection of what we don’t understand.  So I’m an expert in what we don’t understand.  I like sculpture and I like that there are elements of what I do that resemble sculpture.  It has to look good on all sides.

My premise is that the concept of space is not really justified, space doesn’t exist.  After a certain level, elements are not observable, hence they do not exist.  When we refer to a thing or concept, we’re just referring to a relationshop of elements.

David: Two words: inability and wonder.  Inability applies to my acting and ability to translate French.  The wonder has to do with discovering physics.  What worries me greatly is that I have gotten to know less and less about the Solar System.  The disruptive thought I have is whether or not the planets in our Solar System are normal or stanard.  There’s no reason why life as we know it, should be rare.  I feel terribly alone on the planet Earth.  I didn’t expect to be living on Earth all this time and not have someone else get in touch.

Robert: I’d like dicuss the problems raised by disruptive thinking in science.

David: The humility to admit that a answer doesn’t work and we should move on should be addressed.  When you’re working on complex systems, there isn’t an answer to the whole thing.

Fontini: You never choose to work on a disruptive idea. You always work on the other ideas first, but they don’t work out, and you end up on the disruptive ideas.

David: What fascinates me about science is the ignorance of scientists.  As I learn more and more, I realize more and more what I don’t know.

Q: Is the universe symmetrical or assymmetrical?
A: From what we can tell, it looks very much the same in all directions, which is exceedingly boring.  What we don’t know is whether or not we are the only universe in existence.  We also don’t know is what happened before the Big Bang.

Q: Given the development time frame of life on Earth, what are your thoughts on the theory of panspermia?
A: The fascinating thing about life is that as soon as conditions on Earth were possible, life began. But then, we had this huge timescale it took to develop to its current state.  What we don’t know is why it took so long here and whether it would be faster on another planet.

Q: Given the radical uncertainties of science, can we use science for policy?
A: Yes, while its practitioners are flawed and vulnerable to bias and the need to make a living, the requirement for evidence-based validation reigns supreme.  And evidence-based policy is the only way to go.