I recently read an editorial about the "Unbearable Whiteness of Green".... how the green movement is plastered with only upperlcass white people. I was excited to find a valid point- I hadn't thought of such a thing (I'm a white 20-something design student in Portland; sometimes it takes me a minute to remember the rest of the world isn't as pastey, booky, or as Indie as we are.), but I totally agreed before reading the article- I couldn't remember any uber green articles that featured people that I couldn't directly identify with. So I start reading.... his main example: Vanity Fair.
The author writes "just flip through the pages of Vanity Fair's recent green issue (the one with Leo DiCaprio and that cute polar bear cub on the cover). ...Now, count the non-white Americans in the whole magazine. Okay. Now try to find the working-class environmentalists, the ones trying to protect their kids from pollution at the fence-line? Go ahead. Keep looking. See what I mean?"
I went through a few more Vanity Fair issues, after reading this part, and found that the magazine covers all its topics in the same way: predominantly white and wealthy. At this point, the author lost credibility in my eyes, and I had a hard time following his link to California's Prop 87. I couldn't stop thinking about his main point, so I did a little research of my own and found that Paul Mohai, associate professor at the University of Michigan's School of Natural Resources and Environment authored the first African-American centered study on Sustainability.
Apparently, in 2003, African Americans are more likely than white Americans to make sustainable lifestyle choices like buying pesticide-free foods , consuming less meat , and driving less. However, African Americans were less likely than whites to recycle. Also, African Americans were more concerned about their local environment (23% more!).
Had I read anything like this, which took me minutes to pull up, I'd be a happier, more convinced reader. What ever happened to establishing validity before jumping into an argument?
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Vals
Took the VALS test this week, and found out that I am an Achiever/Innovator. This amazing, because the VALS says that Achievers "live conventional lives, are politically conservative, and respect authority over the status quo. They value consensus, predictability, and stability over risk, intimacy, and self-discovery." As a ridiculously liberal spoken-word poet, design student, and Portlander, who has once traveled the United States on a whim, living out of her car, I disagree. Maybe, though, the fact that I'd buy Arm & Hammer over Dr. Bronner's magic bar, puts me in with the soccer moms.
From here, I had a hard time investigating something that made me want to yell "Fraud" at the computer screen- no matter how "successful, take-charge person with a high self-esteem" it tried to tell me I was. The whole thing seems to work backwards under the idea that buyers choose products based on who they want to be- instead of looking at what products they buy; this test claims to ask if one "likes to move around a lot" in 16 different ways and derive whether you'd buy the red or blue pair of underwear without acknowledging that we are all different actors in in different environments.
If an individual is the sum of his behavior and environment, then how can you determine who he'll be when shopping at a store through an online test in his home? Maybe test-taking Leah is much more conservative than I thought! Thanks VALS!
From here, I had a hard time investigating something that made me want to yell "Fraud" at the computer screen- no matter how "successful, take-charge person with a high self-esteem" it tried to tell me I was. The whole thing seems to work backwards under the idea that buyers choose products based on who they want to be- instead of looking at what products they buy; this test claims to ask if one "likes to move around a lot" in 16 different ways and derive whether you'd buy the red or blue pair of underwear without acknowledging that we are all different actors in in different environments.
If an individual is the sum of his behavior and environment, then how can you determine who he'll be when shopping at a store through an online test in his home? Maybe test-taking Leah is much more conservative than I thought! Thanks VALS!
Home again
After hours and hours of field research and interviews, I am, again, digging through pounds of psychological studies: this time, more about the objects and the home and less about Baby-boomers' INSANE impact on the state of everything as they age over the next 30 years.
On "The Semiotics of Home Decor" by Joan Kron (from Home-Psych: The Social Psychology of Home and Decoration):
Kron wrote "If an object reflects a person accurately, it's an index of status. But symbols of status are not always good indices [of such]." She goes on to talk about how anyone with a lump sum of money can buy an object that someone of a higher class might own, and that "clusters of symbols are better than isolated ones." I read this, and wondered when I last bought something to indicate who I already think I am instead of who I'd like to be, and came-up blank. To me, the two represent the same thing: a desire to be the same type of person said buyer associates with a user/owner of said object- why else would the active lifestyle sportswear industry be so huge (does everyone that buys a sub-arctic Northface sweater already think of themselves as Summit climbers?)? If it can be said that we adapt to life through imitation, and then internalize our actions and vocabulary just long enough to find a new situation to adapt to, then how are our possessions any more than a physical expression of our hopes? Status... status comes when we are given an object by someone above us, and so, to me, because America lacks the rules bestowed upon nobles of 15th century Germany, object ownership is no longer granted to us by the king: we are allowed to buy that watch or gorgeous couch in the same way we could wear a Prada scarf without repercussion- but have that scarf given to us personally by an esteemed someone, and it becomes a symbol of how the world should see us.
Simply put, I can't see how an object we choose reflects more than who we want to be (unless we are being cheeky and saying "I am a person that wants to be _____"). Only an object given to us reflects how those people "should" see us... because it acts as a physical reminder that someone thinks of us. Status is merely wrapped up in the giving and becomes proportionally apparent when given by someone we admire- be that for talent, genius, or political success.
Beyond that, I found the rest of the piece a fascinating flurry of instances when we, as owners, cherish the things we own, and could understand why someone would feel detached from an area that lacked familiar objects- things to remind him of how he fits into the world.
On "The Semiotics of Home Decor" by Joan Kron (from Home-Psych: The Social Psychology of Home and Decoration):
Kron wrote "If an object reflects a person accurately, it's an index of status. But symbols of status are not always good indices [of such]." She goes on to talk about how anyone with a lump sum of money can buy an object that someone of a higher class might own, and that "clusters of symbols are better than isolated ones." I read this, and wondered when I last bought something to indicate who I already think I am instead of who I'd like to be, and came-up blank. To me, the two represent the same thing: a desire to be the same type of person said buyer associates with a user/owner of said object- why else would the active lifestyle sportswear industry be so huge (does everyone that buys a sub-arctic Northface sweater already think of themselves as Summit climbers?)? If it can be said that we adapt to life through imitation, and then internalize our actions and vocabulary just long enough to find a new situation to adapt to, then how are our possessions any more than a physical expression of our hopes? Status... status comes when we are given an object by someone above us, and so, to me, because America lacks the rules bestowed upon nobles of 15th century Germany, object ownership is no longer granted to us by the king: we are allowed to buy that watch or gorgeous couch in the same way we could wear a Prada scarf without repercussion- but have that scarf given to us personally by an esteemed someone, and it becomes a symbol of how the world should see us.
Simply put, I can't see how an object we choose reflects more than who we want to be (unless we are being cheeky and saying "I am a person that wants to be _____"). Only an object given to us reflects how those people "should" see us... because it acts as a physical reminder that someone thinks of us. Status is merely wrapped up in the giving and becomes proportionally apparent when given by someone we admire- be that for talent, genius, or political success.
Beyond that, I found the rest of the piece a fascinating flurry of instances when we, as owners, cherish the things we own, and could understand why someone would feel detached from an area that lacked familiar objects- things to remind him of how he fits into the world.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
We Feel Fine
I am in LOVE with Jonathan Harris' Universe, which displays modern "mythology" information through storytelling in a beautiful and compelling way. The site, which was created way back in 2007, may seem less "informationally" relevant than other modern sites (it has not been updated), but in terms of concept, the site remains an inspiration.
Harris, who created "We Feel Fine" (also mind-blowing) in 2006, recently came out with a book about it!! He has also released Sputnik Observatory, a sort of home video meets Ted talks (watch his ted talk here) sort of thing.
Both Cool Hunting and 99% have covered Jonathan Harris and his project "We Feel Fine," and I recently read a photo-article he created in Good Magazine about an Alaskan Whale Hunt.
CHIFOO
Had an awesome time at CHIFOO, which is now being hosted at the Art Institute of Portland's open space. James changed her presentation topic last minute to cover- you guessed it- the ipad, and how it changes the game for ipod/ iphone apps. (think big, right?)
Fantastic!
March 3rd, Jessica Coffey, with Teneo Research speaks about Advanced Research techniques- I wouldn't miss it for the world.
Fantastic!
March 3rd, Jessica Coffey, with Teneo Research speaks about Advanced Research techniques- I wouldn't miss it for the world.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Litl might get Big
Remember the Imac? One of the most popular computer booms in history, and it never appealed to me- but this does.
The new Litl promises good design to users, where everything is automatic. It's a fun computer, "and while you sleep, it updates itself".... I'm not sure how it knows you sleep at 2pm, but way to go litl. It's flip screen does more than change the orientation of a screen view, but the entire way the computer takes in that information. For instance, weather.com turns from it's regular screen to a very very simple look and feel aesthetic (as seen above).
Other neat things (that make me nervous)? The way you find files is through a search box. period. This sounds fantastic for women, but my memory of mens' navigation studies doesn't usually include "and he goes straight to the search box" ... isn't that why those jokes about men asking for directions exist? I just have this idea of the ol'e hubby sitting at the thing for an hour (refusing to ask me how to find something)to look for a drop down menu that doesn't exist (much like my first experience with a Mac).
All in all, I think the litl is beautiful. I just hope users can keep up with it!
The new Litl promises good design to users, where everything is automatic. It's a fun computer, "and while you sleep, it updates itself".... I'm not sure how it knows you sleep at 2pm, but way to go litl. It's flip screen does more than change the orientation of a screen view, but the entire way the computer takes in that information. For instance, weather.com turns from it's regular screen to a very very simple look and feel aesthetic (as seen above).
Other neat things (that make me nervous)? The way you find files is through a search box. period. This sounds fantastic for women, but my memory of mens' navigation studies doesn't usually include "and he goes straight to the search box" ... isn't that why those jokes about men asking for directions exist? I just have this idea of the ol'e hubby sitting at the thing for an hour (refusing to ask me how to find something)to look for a drop down menu that doesn't exist (much like my first experience with a Mac).
All in all, I think the litl is beautiful. I just hope users can keep up with it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)