A few days ago a friend emailed me a picture of a sign that read, “Design won’t save the world. (Go volunteer at a soup kitchen, you pretentious **ck.)” I smiled at the snark, but was frustrated with the sentiment.
As designers, we are saddled with many images of the aloof artist: the hip urban designer, beebopping from office to art opening to downtown loft; the starving artist who wastes away, as their art does the same in a mildewy basement; or the desktop publisher, banging out lifeless brochures as they sneak away to the supply closet to pull out their hair. None of these stereotypes suggests design can alter habits or behaviors.
Last Tuesday, as part of the New York SVA Dot Dot Dot lecture series, The Entrepreneurs of social design presented a few possible ways designers might save the world. A few of my favorite moments happened in talks by previous PopTech speakers Robert Fabricant and Dr. Jay Parkinson:
Three of the five designers featured at the event framed their role as designers in the medical field:
Doug Powell – Designer and Brand Strategist, Schwartz Powell
When his seven year-old daughter was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes, Doug and his family were thrown into the painfully undersigned, over-textual world of pediatric medicine. Once they got their head above water, Doug and his wife created the Health Simple product line, focused on delivering easily-palatable information to get the patients and their families through one event at a time. Doug created a balance with these fun products, taking into consideration the educational and emotional needs of all involved.
Robert Fabricant – VP of Creative, frog design and Speaker at PopTech 2009
Robert laid out some humbling guidelines for designers, and touched on some of the health and wellness behavioral projects that frog is undertaking. Robert’s work on the PopTech Accelerator’s Project Masilueleke has helped change the face of mobile healthcare for HIV and tuberculosis patients in South Africa.
Jay outlined the need for the redesign of the entire health care process in America, taking into consideration the prevalence of the internet in everyday life, the importance of the patient/doctor/community when administering healthcare, and the changing intersection of the insurance, healthcare and online worlds.
With their teams, these three are part of the growing movement to redesign how individuals receive healthcare—and who would argue that isn’t going to save the world?
Photographer Chris Jordan specializes in large-scale works that depict the magnitude of our consumerism and its impact on our environment. [To get a sense of the magnitude of the trash produced by discarded consumer goods that statistics alone can’t reveal, watch Chris’s PopTech 2007 presentation on his project, Running the Numbers.]
For the past several years, Chris has been photographing the “garden patch,” an estimated several million tons of plastic floating in the remote open ocean. Powerful ocean currents concentrate floating debris into subtropical gyres and, in the process, break it down into tiny pieces that are easily ingested by animals.
At PopTech 2009, Chris shared images from his recent trip to the remote Midway Islands, where he photographed the carcasses of ocean-dwelling birds who live near the Pacific garbage zone.
Relying on the data from thousands of drifter buoy monitoring our oceans as well as oceanic expeditions, researchers affiliated with Five Gyres have been mapping the extent of plastic pollution around the world. They recently discovered what has been long suspected, that more garbage patches exist in other oceans.
Image courtesy of 5 Gyres.org
As with any number of critical environmental issues, addressing these challenges requires a commitment to reduce our consumption but also to visionary innovation. Recently, a group of Dutch architects have envisioned recycling the Pacific’s floating debris into a floating island.
What do you suggest might be done about the millions of tons of marine pollution?
We celebrate thoughtful stewardship of natural resources and new ways to tackle issues of conservation and regrowth throughout the year, but as part of Earth Week, we would like to highlight a few PopTech speakers on these themes:
2007 Speaker Stefano Merlin on renewable bamboo, coconut waste and sawdust to power factories in Brazil.
2009 PopTech Fellow Jason Aramburu’s re:char converts agricultural waste into biochar—sequestering atmospheric carbon and improving soil quality. (Congratulations to Jason for recently appointing Dr. James Lovelock to the re:char Advisory Board.)
2007 Speaker Sarah Otterstrom uses partnerships and employment generation to rebuild Nicaraguan forests.
2009 Fellow Paula Kahumbu builds community through blogs in WildlifeDirect, as Executive Director, aiming to halt the loss of endangered animal populations in Africa (and globally) with awareness and donations (you can select a region and a species to protect on the site).
2008 Speaker Carl Safina shows how simple solutions can help ensure we only catch what we are fishing with long lines.
2007 Speaker Enric Sala talks about perception, the lack of memory (he takes us back to a pristine remote archipelago 500 years ago), explaining why 99.9% of the world’s coral reef research is flawed.
2004 Speaker Ben Saunders was the youngest person to ski to the North Pole at 26; find out why, when the ice wasn’t flat, he “didn’t have a hope in hell.”
2008 Speaker John Priscu and his robots show what’s happening miles below the Antarctic ice, beyond the blue and the green of the planet.
Who are your favorite environmental speakers?
It’s spring here in California, and there is a lot blooming at ISIS:
ISIS made it to the second round of the Social Impact Exchange Business Plan Competition. We were one of 14 organizations out of 42 applicants invited to continue, and we have applied for Mezzanine Stage Growth—for organizations that have successful service adoption, demonstrated positive outcomes, and defined strategies for scaling.
Also, the upcoming mHealth conference Mobile Health 2010 on May 24th and 25th at Stanford University is the third of its kind hosted by BJ Fogg. 2010 has a special emphasis on what’s working to change behavior today in the mHealth field, and in my talk, I am looking forward to highlighting our partnerships in this sphere. In preparation for my talk, I realized that ISIS has over 20 mobile health projects under our belt to date! (Other PopTechers involved with the conference include Robert Fabricant, of frog design, one of the mentors for PopTech Fellows, is speaking, and another 2009 PopTech Social Innovation Fellow, Josh Nesbit of FrontlineSMS: Medic, is on the Program Committee.)
ISIS staff will also be attending the 2010 Ypulse Youth Marketing Mashup. This is an important meeting for sexual health professionals, because as I’m wont to say; “Only those in the field can manage to make an interesting topic (sex) oh, so boring.” I learned quite a bit from the corporate marketers at the last two meetings about how to engage youth in an authentic and meaningful way – all the more important in our case because we’re not selling commercial products, but lifelong sexual health…
I will be moderating a panel at the Mashup pre-conference on May 24th about “Youth, Health and Social Media Marketing.” Jason Rzepka, PopTech Board Member, will be a keynote speaker at the pre-conference. The panel I’m moderating will feature:
Tom Subak, VP for Online Services, Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Jose Villa, Founder and President, Sensis
Whitney Smith, Founder and CEO, Girls For A Change
Chris Youngblood, Director of New Media, To Write Love on Her Arms
(Use the code “SEXTECH” for 10% off the conference registration.)
I’ll keep you posted on ISIS events, and I look forward to hearing what others in the PopTech community are up to this spring.
On Wednesday night, the inaugural “FAILfaire” hosted by MobileActive and The Open Planning Project offices in NYC brought together a crowd of about seventy to hear four refreshingly candid presentations about what they learned working on mobile projects around the world. Some highlights in this video:
PopTech 2010: Brilliant Accidents, Necessary Failures, and Improbable Breakthroughs includes the failure theme (request a registration), so we were delighted to note the warmth of the crowd, the honesty of the speakers, and the quality of the questions at the Wednesday event.
A few things we think contribute to a successful event on failure (and congratulations to Katrin and the MobileActive team):
- From the presenters, self-deprecating humor is both appropriate and appreciated.
- Offering reflections on the work during the presentations helps keep the Q&A productive.
- Timelines work particularly well for offering context and for narrative purposes.
- Presentations with multiple team members help highlight different aspects of the project.
- Sensitivity to partners on collaborative projects (especially those not in the room) is key; moderator must announce ground rules and presenters should preface any sensitive remarks as for the room only (not to be blogged, tweeted, or recorded in any way).
- Frankness and epic quality of the fail should be rewarded (at this event, funny prizes of an analog tablet, a shirt, and a thematically-related book) and ideally, the atmosphere of convivial learning continues after the presentations end.
The Landscapes of Quarantine exhibition at Manhattan’s Storefront for Art and Architecture, curated from the fall workshop series of the same name by FuturePlural’s Nicola Twilley and Geoff Manaugh, held two dinner events this past weekend on the theme of quarantine.
Six courses from food collective A Razor, A Shiny Knife, led by Michael Cirino,
made up a banquet exploring containment, separation, and gastronomic manipulation,
with effervescent spirits,
petri dishes of roe, juniper, and Meyer lemon,
smoked fish jarringly served with visible smoke,
a ravioli with packets of sauce and an herb,
fruit, bread, and cheese enrobed in wax,
and dessert of cocktail drinks solidified into spheres and spongy cake.
Dinner events like these help us examine how we incorporate food thoughtfully into our lives, disorienting our notions of proper and fine dining in order to redefine how we feed ourselves and others with experiences, new utensils, and a playful relationship with all things edible.
For the full menu and more images, please see this post; for more on PopTech and food, watch the PopTech 2009 stage presentations from noted food systems theorist Michael Pollan, hydroponic urban farmer Will Allen, and especially food designer Marije Vogelzang (who creates similarly themed food installations) as well as the video of The New York Times’s Perfume Critic Chandler Burr on his October 2009 PopTech “Scent Dinner.”
A few updates from the PopTech network in the past week:
Read the great comment thread and watch video from the post:
Mayor John Fetterman, who spoke at PopTech 2009 about the challenges of leading his town of Braddock, Pennsylvania, appeared on PBS’s NOW last Friday.
Ken Banks, a British entrepreneur who works in Africa and developed FrontlineSMS, a text-messaging service for aid groups, put it this way: “There’s often a tendency in the West to approach things the wrong way round, so we end up with solutions looking for a problem, or we build things just because we can.”
The Santa Clara University Global Social Benefit Incubator 2010 Cohort includes three PopTech Fellows: Jason Aramburu of re:char, Nigel Waller of Movirtu, and Tevis Howard of Komaza—neat group of projects and people that will meet for a few weeks this August.
Three wild chimpanzee babies have been born in six months, cause for hope at Wildlife Direct, an organization directed by PopTech Social Innovation Fellow Paula Kahumbu.
A few days are left before the April 16th deadline for an Open Framework workshop in Breda with PopTech speaker Zach Lieberman (“Artistic practice is a form of R&D for humanity,” he told PopTech 2009).
And we find these folded solar panels interesting.
Assaf Biderman, associate director of MIT’s Senseable City Lab spoke at PopTech 2009 about a number of the lab’s projects that explore how technology is transforming urban spaces. One project traced flows of garbage in Seattle in order to better understand the waste removal process in cities disposal. Another illustrates the global exchange of data between New York and other cities around the world.
Last week, PopTech caught up with Assaf to learn more about the lab’s latest initiative, “The Copenhagen Wheel,” that aims to help cities and individuals combat climate change, and about the value of combining real-time data with other kinds of information.
Art Work: A National Conversation About Art, Labor and Economics is a social media project spearheaded by Temporary Services, a three-person art collective based out of Chicago, IL. The Art Work Web site hosts information on a free social service Temporary Services is providing (an independent newspaper) and various contact information, news, and information on how to be involved. All content is related to the basic notion of art and work, emphasizing the role artists play in the economy, as well as various strategies artists can use to continue making socially engaging works during our ‘Great Recession.’
Temporary Services wants to highlight the many ways artists are making work and building local artistic cultures across the country. To do this, they have put together a rich network of people and ideas to compose the content of the newspaper, with essays, art historical analyses of the relationships of art to unions, labor and money markets, and several op-ed pieces (“Personal Economies,”) where anonymous art workers describe the myriad ways they survive and are still able to produce work.
Contents also include an essay by Pulitzer Prize-winning critic Holland Cotter, a compiled history called “Selected Moments in the History of Economic Art” by Temporary Services, a complete transcription of conceptual artist Chris Burden’s 1979 radio broadcast on KPFK called “Send Me Your Money,” and the Manhattan-based 16 Beaver Group announcement on their global mega-merger between art and politics collectives into a mega-collective known as C.A.R.T.E.L. (16 Beaver did not specify what the letters in the acronym stand for).
Art Work: A National Conversation About Art, Labor and Economics, Temporary Services
The newspaper is free, and a pdf version is available for download at the project’s Web site, artandwork.us. Temporary Services will send free analog copies of the paper to anyone wanting to host a local event for the project.
In 2009, Temporary Services began distributing copies of Art Work to various colleagues across the globe to host local events. The events could be anything from a full-scale gallery exhibition to a small get-together for people to have a conversation about the business of working as an artist. Temporary Services formally showed Art Work at SPACES in Cleveland, Ohio from November of 2009 to January of 2010; SPACES worked as the distribution hub for the paper.
Art Work at SPACES, Cleveland, OH
Local events for Art Work have occurred in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and a few other countries. One of the premises of the printed newspaper is that it is in itself an exhibition. The paper can be taken apart and taped to a wall for a gallery-ready text piece, like Carnegie Mellon University’s Miller Gallery did for a blue motif in the exhibit.
Art Work at Carnegie Mellon University’s Miller Gallery, Pittsburgh, PA
The subject matter of the articles in the 40-page Art Work newspaper works as a catalyst for local interests inside of the national conversation. When the event was hosted in my hometown of Anchorage, we were most interested in the ideas associated with microgranting, which is an essay entitled “Micro Granting From the Bottom Up” by a group called InCUBATE, found on page 21 of the paper. Microgranting is one of the few ways in Alaska of supporting each other in making work that doesn’t fit into traditional formats.
Art workers would rather see interesting work being made instead of waiting for a gallery or other cultural authority to become interested, which is how the current moment of social media becomes relevant: it simply takes too long for established analog spaces like museums and galleries to be harbingers of our changing culture. If we want to see something different, we can put it online.
Art Work at Gallery 400, Chicago, IL
Several art workers have stated that Art Work as a social media enterprise was a psychological comfort to them. They felt connected to other art workers across the country who (like themselves) are always coming up with creative ways of keeping their non-profit’s doors open, or keeping their artistic practice alive. At the very least—all of the local conversations, which are happening because of this project, people who live near each other are being made more aware of others in their area who are willing to give some of their own valuable time to work together on making a better future for each other. On page 10 of the paper, in large type is printed, “Nothing changes when people do not engage in the long and difficult work of building a diverse, multi-cultural, working class movement from the ground up.”
Anya Kamenetz, a technology and innovation writer for Fast Company, has just published her second book, DIY U: Edupunks, Edupreneurs, and the Coming Transformation of Higher Education. In it, Kamenetz explores how technology is upsetting the traditional hierarchies and categories of education, putting students in the driver’s seat of the learning process – versus at the effect of it.
“Increasingly,” she writes, “this means students will decide what they want to learn; when, where, and with whom; and they will learn by doing.” She urges young people to step up to the changes; to start planning how to bypass the aspects of today’s educational system that keep them from learning what they need to succeed and thrive economically. Kamenetz also argues passionately for new online educational models that will make it possible for “millions of kids now forced out of the system” to change it into a more inclusive, relevant, and collaborative experience.
I caught up with Kamenetz yesterday at her Fast Company desk, between deadlines. What follows is an edited transcript of our conversation:
You were thinking for a long time about writing a book about problems regarding access to higher education, the cost of education and the relevance of it, but what finally convinced you to make this book happen?
It’s true. I found a groundswell of students who felt their degree wasn’t giving them the preparation they needed. But what really pushed me over the edge was realizing that I had a bead on some solutions. Working at Fast Company and covering the technology space, I have seen that there is a lot of destructive change happening in a lot of different areas. But in the education space, it’s been increasingly clear that it’s a domain where people are asking this question a lot: Why hasn’t technology transformed education as it has so many other institutions and industries?
So why hasn’t it, in your view?
I had been delving into education’s 1,000-year history to try to answer that question, and I found that education has been the institution of institutions, particularly as our society started to get more organized in the 20th century. During the post-WW2 era in America, every institution got larger and had a bigger impact in people’s lives — and universities generated the experts that made these institutions possible. So universities sort of gained in power, as did the federal government and large corporations and the military, and science. And so educational institutions, especially, are very locked up and locked down. They are “the complex.” They hold the keys in terms of money and prestige and many different kinds of social proof in our society, and so to disrupt that model requires disrupting a lot of different apple carts.
What’s got to fall before some new approaches to education, radical innovation, can occur more broadly, and how painful do you think it’s going to be in the transition?
It’s scary, obviously, to talk about the collateral damage. But okay, one way of looking at it is that college now provides three main functions for most students and those are: content — instructional content and knowledge; socialization, or human development and also initiating people into networks of peers and teachers and professionals, and finally, accreditation. That’s the social proof, that piece of paper that says you’re good to go. Content has been exploded in the last 10 years. Full suites and complements of academic materials have become free and open commodities on the Web. Socialization [over the Web] is transforming young people.
It was college students who had created things like Facebook, and young people tell me that the way they relate to each other and find communities is continuing to change because of the Web. We are all changing the ways we communicate, so the socialization factors of the traditional educational experience can now be provided over the Web in very interesting ways through social media. So what’s really still missing from that picture is accreditation – but it may be surprisingly easy [to provide that on the Web, too.] What is required for that to happen is for people to get better at recognizing that people can now use the Web to acquire knowledge and socialization skills directly, bypassing the institutional middleman. Once this becomes more apparent, that people are doing this, you will start to see a lot of new [educational] value being released.
You wrote something recently about Startl, a first-of-its-kind social innovation hub for education that’s being backed by some of the best-known foundations, including Gates, Hewlett, and MacArthur. You quoted Startl founder Phoenix Wang as saying that today’s new generations of kids don’t want to be told what to learn but “expect they should be able to have control over how they learn, what they learn and where they do it, as co-collaborators.” That triggered a lot of responses from people. There’s a lot of discomfort here.
It’s a revolution. There is potential to do a lot of new things. I think technology tools can go both ways; just because you have technology doesn’t necessarily mean we’re going to have democracy or, conversely, anarchy. But I’ll give you a good example of the discomfort from another domain. I was speaking to a [college] architecture student yesterday who talked to me about how she’s done a lot of work at her school to try to get a joint program going between the architecture school and the [environmental] sustainability, or forestry program. But it didn’t really work out because there was no support from this faculty. It was very much a situation where there was a generational divide and all of this young woman’s fellow architecture students understood that they needed to be thinking about sustainability in every project that they made. But none of their professors understood that, and they didn’t really know how to do it. They didn’t have the content or the domain knowledge to do it. And when they set up this joint program, it became really clear that the forestry teachers didn’t necessarily know how to teach architecture students, either – or that they didn’t have the wherewithal to collaborate across these two domains as flexibly as the students would have liked them to do.
I think that you see this kind of thing happening a lot across a lot of different areas where young people are coming up, and they are not necessarily respecting the old disciplines and hierarchies. They’re sort of taking for granted the fact that teaching on these topics has to become more fluid and also that new solutions have to be created all the time to solve the challenges that are facing us as a society. It’s this type of transformation in education that existing institutions are not well set up to do. These new and evolving organizations on the Web are.
New media thinker Mark Pesce predicted at last spring’s Personal Democracy Forum that the rise of Web-wired, self-organized groups won’t necessarily topple existing institutions but will be abrasively reshaping them, “like sand against limestone.” Is this, in your view, a good description of what’s happening with regard to online communities and social networks and traditional colleges and universities?
I’m going to offer you a counter metaphor. Last year, I was in the MIT Media Lab, and I was interviewing a young scientist [it’s impossible to describe what she does without a lot of hyphens.] This person, Neri Oxman, showed me in the basement of MIT — a pretty traditional institution — that there is a 3-D printer that uses sand and it prints buildings. At this point, it prints small buildings. But at some point, it will be able to print entire buildings. And the assumption that we make about what is permanent and what kinds of investments in resources does it take to create an institution like MIT might be totally changed by something like that. And in fact, at MIT, they are changing. In the virtual world, they have created a courseware site where many of their courses are being offered online, for free, and something like 93 million people have accessed them, so who’s an MIT student and who isn’t? How much more influence is MIT having on the world because of this? [Editor’s note: Watch Neri Oxman’s 2009 PopTech talk for more on her work.]
What would you tell a student, or someone who is just entering high school or college, how to compensate for what traditional institutions today aren’t able to deliver?
The last chapter of the book is sort of written as a guide for students in that position. As a student, you have to start by changing your own whole mental model, right? A lot of students, especially really good students, have gone through the whole [educational] system by having an external locus of control. In other words, they are well attuned to what institutions or parents think about them and what their work is all about. But they are not as good at learning on their own. They are not as good at following their own curiosity and they may not have an internalized idea of what they’re good at or what it is that they really want to do. These are skills they really need to work on.
If I had an 18-year-old kid going off to college, I’d encourage him or her to spend the summer in some sort of self-discovery process, where they are taking lot of responsibility for their own existence and are getting lots of insights into who they are and what they want. That, really, has to be a starting point for any education. Maybe that sounds a little bit woolly or vague, but what I’m saying is that you have to forget what the institution wants from you and you have to start thinking about [education] in terms of what is my goal? And what are the resources I can assemble to make that goal happen? I think people today need to assume it won’t be one institution, and it won’t be one kind of experience, and it won’t just be online, and it won’t just be a person. It won’t be a workplace experience or travel and it won’t be just coursework. It won’t just be research, nor experimentation, either. What you’re going to want to do is combine as many of these as possible into a plan, always with your own goal in mind but not simply the goal of getting a diploma.
It’s kind of like what’s happening in health care – the move by many patients to take control of their own health amid a broken system.
I think a lot of people would agree that the health care system is broken but we have to be really careful here, because a major reason I wrote this book is that the education system is broken – not just for our children or for me as the child that I was, but for the millions and millions of kids forced out of the system who are not getting the education they need and can’t afford to get a decent degree that will translate into a decent job. That’s the major reason why education has to change, not just to make things better for kids at MIT.
Has technology, during this evolution we’re talking about, given us too much information/knowledge too fast? Is both the amount of information and the speed at which it can be shared overwhelming us — not only with the reality of how much more there is to know but how inadequate our institutions have been in delivering it to more people?
I think that our [educational] institutions are too slow to keep pace with digital technologies but I also think we are evolving new types of institutions. You know, Jefferson talked about how the human store of knowledge must be growing and enlarging, advancing accumulating until the end of time – if not infinitely then indefinitely. And he lived in a time when he was broadly thought to be a person that was an actual Renaissance Man; he had top-level knowledge in every major domain of life in that time, whether it was botany or astronomy or cooking or politics. I don’t think anyone would argue that today, very few people have the ability to have the knowledge that Jefferson had, and so I think that in general, [the rapid evolution of the Web] is a good thing and change is speeding up. The fact that it’s speeding up is a good thing and the fact that there is more information than ever before is a really good thing.
We just need to start being very creative about how we deal with the acceleration. I want to be a friend of change. I think there’s been a little bit of a debate already about the book coming out. I get asked, Are you a Pandora opening up Pandora’s Box, or are you a Cassandra, declaiming that things are doomed and that other things are coming up in their place? I kind of don’t want to take responsibility for either of these [viewpoints]. I think we are all imagining a different kind of future and I want to be on the side of the future and not on the side of the past.