Curious and Unusual Gift Ideas

[Shucks]

Shucks what if say, I, am not capable of being a hero. but i am capable of being witty. would it be better that i did nothing at all? for fear of doing something less respectable? trained artists and folksy crafters both create things because they are compelled to. what difference does it make? who is righter? no one. as long as you are being honest.

yes, honesty. that was sort of my point to begin with, no? But honesty is not enough. A designer has a larger responsibility to bear than only unto himself. To me that is a key difference between design and art. Design must consider its impact on society - it has and should have an ethical imperative. Talent alone should not dictate the choices made by a designer. Instead a designer must ask "is what I do relevant? Am I a force of good or evil? Am I helping society evolve towards a better future or am I creating distractions, obstacles or even greater problems?". The noncommital and morally empty attitude of post-modernism is something to despise, as far as I am concerned.

[neonrider]

Very interesting discussion.

"Design must consider its impact on society - it has and should have an ethical imperative."

Please don't take this the wrong way, but:

Why? Is social impact really a productive justification for a moral imperative in design? "Relevant" and "responsible" to whom, and in what terms? Further, where is "society" bounded, in time and space? New York? the USA? America? Europe? Further still, if this moral imperative is concerned with "impact" on "society", hasn't fast fashion done more for prosperity in, say, Viet Nam and Bangladesh, than high end luxe? Even if we disagree that it hasn't, who is the best judge of "relevance" and "impact", "good" and "evil? Conversely, what if "society" wants from designers destructive stuff of negative impact?

Just some questions to consider.

*shout-out to mbd for a series of awesome posts in this thread.

[Shucks]

Very interesting discussion.

"Design must consider its impact on society - it has and should have an ethical imperative."

Please don't take this the wrong way, but:

Why? Is social impact really a productive justification for a moral imperative in design? "Relevant" and "responsible" to whom, and in what terms? Further, where is "society" bounded, in time and space? New York? the USA? America? Europe? Further still, if this moral imperative is concerned with "impact" on "society", hasn't fast fashion done more for prosperity in, say, Viet Nam and Bangladesh, than high end luxe? Even if we disagree that it hasn't, who is the best judge of "relevance" and "impact", "good" and "evil? Conversely, what if "society" wants from designers destructive stuff of negative impact?

Just some questions for a designer to consider.

Fixed.

I hate lazy designers who don't bother to consider - or just don't care about - their larger impact on the world. You don't? And what you bring up seems random to me - what exactly is your point anyway? If it is moral relativism you argue for, then it is a slippery slope. Even Feyerabend recanted somewhat because of this (it is said...).

And yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if even H&M have had a more positive impact on Bangladesh than some guy spending his time making gold versions of Mickey D's coffee swizzlers... Don't tell me, tell your new friend.

[TypicalFashion]

more gift ideas need to happen in this thread!

here's something I got for my lady, urushiware lunch/bento box





Its natural urushi coating -- which is derived from the Asian urushi tree and applied using an time-tested technique -- renders the box water-resistant, acid-resistant and heat-resistant. Urushi is one of the only natural substances that completely seals the wood. Contrary to oiled wood, urushi-lacquered wood will not welcome bacteria into its pores.

http://lifewithoutplastic.com/boutique/oval-japanese-bento-made-cedar-coated-with-natural-lacquer-p-408.html

[TypicalFashion]

Stocking stuffer:



This face brush is for dry use only. It removes dead skin and encourages circulation to the face.
Iris Hantwerk employs visually impaired craftspeople to create beautiful handmade brushes. Each individual bundle of bristles are bound to hardwood handles just like they were made in the 19th century.

http://mjolk.ca/product/home-accessories/face-brush/

For my neice, but useful all around:

http://www.jawbone.com/product-jambox-overview

[tgadd]

Fixed.

I hate lazy designers who don't bother to consider - or just don't care about - their larger impact on the world. You don't? And what you bring up seems random to me - what exactly is your point anyway? If it is moral relativism you argue for, then it is a slippery slope. Even Feyerabend recanted somewhat because of this (it is said...).

And yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if even H&M have had a more positive impact on Bangladesh than some guy spending his time making gold versions of Mickey D's coffee swizzlers... Don't tell me, tell your new friend.

"It is clear, then, that the idea of a fixed method, or of a fixed theory of rationality, rests on too naive a view of man and his social surroundings. To those who look at the rich material provided by history, and who are not intent on impoverishing it in order to please their lower instincts, their craving for intellectual security in the form of clarity, precision, 'objectivity', 'truth', it will become clear that there is only one principle that can be defended under all circumstances and in all stages of human development. It is the principle: anything goes."

[Shucks]

yeah, that's the most hackneyed feyerabend quote there is (bravo...) and it is mainly concerned with cognition, not morality. also, like i said, even feyerabend rejected normative moral relativism in the end. just try applying it to a practical situation such as murder, and you will see how it fails.

and since we are apparently communicating with CTRL-C / CTRL-V, here's an interesting point by richard boyd...

"I suggested earlier that sophisticated consequentialism did have the resources for justifying a certain level of involvement with intellectual and artistic work, despite the profound poverty and inequality which currently prevails, and I suggested that the interesting question from a consequentialist point of view may not be how much intellectual and artistic work is morally permissible but, instead, what sorts of work are morally appropriate for intellectuals and artists. I can now make that point more clearly.

If the version of consequentialism which I have sketched out here is correct, then the main theoretical issues in moral theory are about the workings of human social, political, and economic systems and the ways in which such systems have an impact on the homeostatic unity of human flourishing. The main barriers to successful theoretical work in this domain are ideological.

Thus, I would suggest, if there is some moral imperative regarding intellectual and artistic work it enjoins intellectuals and artists to devote some of their talents to the task of exploring these theoretical issues, to the articulation (artistic as well as scholarly) of radical critiques of the ideology which blinds us to our human potential, and (mainly) to the building of political movements capable of radically changing the social and economic regimes under which we live."

[kunk75]

i lol'd; I think this makes me a bad person[QUOTE=MetroBulotDodo;275245]

And KUNK, the paper bags were, ahem, never produced. Not as far as I know.

[tgadd]

Shucks - 2 points.

First - your Boyd quote (particularly "[The] moral imperative regarding intellectual and artistic work... enjoins intellectuals and artists... to the articulation (artistic as well as scholarly) of radical critiques of the ideology which blinds us to our human potential, and (mainly) to the building of political movements capable of radically changing the social and economic regimes under which we live.") seems more to justify the work of Wong than to argue that "[design] must consider its impact on society - it has and should have an ethical imperative", or that "anyone spending their time on industrial design / product design would serve the world better redesigning products to be longer lasting (esthetics and functionality), more available to those who need them the most, more efficient and more sustainable."

Second - "Truth is simply a compliment paid to sentences seen to be paying their way."

[copacetic]

"...seems more to justify the work of Wong than to argue that '[design] must consider its impact on society...'"

Hmm, I don't think it justifies one more than the other. No stipulation as to the form this "radical critique" should take.

And Shucks, I think that neonrider's (strong) point about "'relevant' and 'responsible' to whom..." etc., is more a challenge for you to articulate what you mean more clearly than some attempted trump to your argument.

I'd like to see you pushed to explain more than having a "better impact on the world," which is vague, and so problematic.

[Shucks]

"...seems more to justify the work of Wong than to argue that '[design] must consider its impact on society...'"

Hmm, I don't think it justifies one more than the other. No stipulation as to the form this "radical critique" should take.

And Shucks, I think that neonrider's (strong) point about "'relevant' and 'responsible' to whom..." etc., is more a challenge for you to articulate what you mean more clearly than some attempted trump to your argument.

I'd like to see you pushed to explain more than having a "better impact on the world," which is vague, and so problematic.

to quote myself :

to be clear: anyone spending their time on industrial design / product design would serve the world better redesigning products to be longer lasting (esthetics and functionality), more available to those who need them the most, more efficient and more sustainable. better than ironic-but-not gold trinkets for a moneyed and jaded elite (which are just a big and very sad opportunity cost to me).

radical critique in design is not just 'look at us, aren't we all silly'. and even this modest statement is something which wong et al. even make only half-heartedly - the other half of their design activity is a cynical and self-serving capitalization on a culture-as-status consumerist society in the same way damien hirst does it. in fact, this disingenous type of design actually reinforces what it claims to criticise, i.e. 'consumption'. this one of my problems with pluralist/relativist points-of-view.

radical critique in design is asking 'wait, isn't this a better way?'. it is time for critical alternatives, not post-modern and self-centered flippancy. and since (arguably as opposed to 'art') the end results of design have a direct impact on end-users and on society, it is our moral obligation to make sure it is never arbitrary or coming from self-gratification or cynicism. how the end results should be shaped is obviously context specific (design is a system of limitations and these limitations vary with the context) and as i pointed out before, for each designer to thoroughly consider before adding yet another product to the world. what we (must) want, and now have the potential to achieve in the end is 'human flourishing' - i.e. the good of all mankind, not just of ourselves or those closest to us.

let me quote boyd again:

"So, artistic and intellectual endeavors exhibit a real and important homeostatic unity with the other moral goods but that unity is painfully limited, in part because they exhibit a similar sort of unity with certain systematic evils.

In fact, somewhat similar situations almost certainly obtain with respect to other moral goods, where the enjoyment of those goods by some people tends to contribute to the well-being of some significant number of others, but fails to contribute to (or even undermines) the well-being many others.

So, what should we say about the unity of the moral good in the light of such facts? Two things: it's not now very unified, and it's our moral duty to work towards the establishmeant of social conditions in which the homeostatic unity is greatly enhanced. The unity of the good is, for those reasons, largely up to us."


PS. is an 'ethics' thread a good idea for SZ? it seems to be in line with the manifesto and discussions on ethics/morality, consumption, originality, etc. seem to crop up quite frequently...

[endersgame]

so that little bunny i got, i gave to my housekeepers daughter last night. the look on her face was so precious.

she took it out of the box, held it for 5 seconds and put it away..

[dddr]

been looking for a case for a macpro 15', i quite like the ones lowrey posted earlier and it's not very expensive and totally affordable:)

came across a few others,

http://think-silly.com/2010/10/14/macromauro/

http://www.cargabags.com/slmb15.php#

leather, paper-ish would all do an excellent job for me, but obviously would prefer dropping 40euros than 200bucks on this.

any ideas any helps would be appreciated! thanks very much guys!

[nekroterrorist]

So, I realised Valentine's Day is on Monday...
Gift ideas suddenly become important to me again.

[PaintedBlack_7]

So, I realised Valentine's Day is on Monday...
Gift ideas suddenly become important to me again.

i just made a stainless steel petal rose.

i had a nickel stick welding rod lying around, beat the flux off it

pounded some 316L plate that i used to teach a buddyof mine Tig stringers on (so it had the flawless HAZ/rainbow you see on good welds and some black parts where he contaminated the rod)

polished off the black parts cleaned it up a little and voila

a metal rose. i just gave it to my mom, single haha. So my mom is getting a pretty badass hand formed Tig welded rose

i did one for a buddy back about 2 years ago with steel, so it would rust and deca like a real rose