Evolution of the Hybrid Game

For this round of the Hybrid Game, we looked at various methods of classification for our images. We began grouping the images by making general assumptions about the object's function or finding similar materiality of the objects.


We noticed that the groupings naturally bridged into each other in various ways. For example, starting with the bottom left, we grouped the images together because they were different forms of games. Moving toward the right were more forms of games with an emphasis on current technology trends. Moving upward from there were images of fashion, which also emphasizes current trends. Nearly all of our groupings had some sort of bridge that made one flow into the other.


To find a new way to look at our images, we applied a different classification system to them, grouping them this time by overall color similarities. These results may have been skewed, as some of the images were printed in black and white, though it was interesting to note that many of the black and white grouped images were also grouped together in the "classic icon" group of the last classification system.


Lastly we chose to rearrange the images by alphabetical order. For each image, we had to agree upon what the identifying characteristic was (in one word) in order to group by first letter of that word. This experiment revealed much about the hierarchy of importance in imagery, and how that can change without the affect of context.


This experiment showed us the depth of understanding that classification can bring to seemingly unrelated images. By changing the method of grouping, we were able to make new observations about the same images. Clearly classification can become an important tool for designers to examine their subjects in fresh ways.

Introductory Statement

Consideration of the word "classic" brings to mind several different associations. Something described as "classic" may have qualities that endure through time, or may be considered representative of a certain era, or even may be considered traditional or typical in contrast to others. It can be applied to classify design, art, literature, modes of communication, schools of thought, systems of accomplishing objectives, and more.Yet the passing of time yields change, and a variety of inputs barrage these original classic forms, forcing them to evolve. The newly adapted forms become hybrids, which contain elements of the initial form as well as new elements. Hybrids are often seen as "outrageous", as the offspring of the tame & the wild, in possession of both the familiar and unfamiliar. A useful tool for understanding the hybrids that exist around us is the catalogue. Sometimes taking the form of a list, a register, or other methods of classification, a catalogue offers a new way of understanding things that allows us to step back and examine various groupings and inputs related to a concept or object. So how then can we use various methods of cataloging to examine the present day hybrids around us?
What sort of new links and associations will we be able to find from these catalogues? How would these hybrid forms be different if other inputs had affected them? The following investigation may serve to better understand our past, define our present and speculate about our future.

Systems theory & class statement

Complexification and the design process

From Mutual Causality:

The processes by which the system sustains and creates order in Fleiss-Gleichgewicht are seen as twofold. One is homeostatic, whereby the continuity of structure or pattern is maintained. The other is self-organizing, whereby the structure is modified, its organization increased. In this complexification the system moves toward greater improbability and variety. This involves a decrease in structural stability: The system, more finely tuned, is more vulnerable to physical disorganization, but this in turn is counterbalanced by a greater flexibility and capacity to adapt, process information, and cope.

Systems research shows that, starting anywhere except the thermodynamically most probable equilibrium, an open system will complexify in response to inputs from the environment. This finding has led W.R. Ashby to say that in such a system “life and intelligence inevitably develop.”

Behaviorism presents the person as motivated by tension reduction and primarily reactive; it postulates a homeostatic type of equilibrium in which rest or inactivity is the goal. If this were indeed the case, says von Bertalanffy, “life would never have progressed beyond the amoeba which, after all, is the best adapted creature in the world…[and] Michelangelo should have followed his father’s request and gone in the wool trade, thus sparing himself lifelong anguish.” In contrast to the stimulus-response (S-R) model, systems theory sees the individual as primarily active, seeking not rest but that steady state maintained by the tension of interaction, as evident in spontaneous, exploratory, and playful behavior.

Our task:

Defining design research process and the creative process

+ Tracking evolution of products/communications that we consider classic

+ Developing a process by which we can analyze examples

+ Using/seeking transdisciplinary resources and problem-solving techniques

+ Surveying answers to past problems and utilizing findings as toolkit in projecting future solutions

+ Determining elemental forms/ideas/intentions

+ Creating complexified systems by adding inputs to challenge classic constructs—examining hybrids

+ Seeking new holons from complexified systems

+ Cataloging/re-cataloging as a tool to explore systems from multiple perspectives

+ Seeking points where tension of interaction occurs, and applying those points to new systems

Haecceity

I came across this description after reading this column by David Brooks in the New York Times, highlighting a number of answers to the question: What scientific concept would improve everybody’s cognitive toolkit? The question formed the basis for a symposium organized by edge.org to which 164 thinkers submitted their answers.

The concept of haecceity (described by Bruce Hood) resonated with me in the context of our discussions of hybrid as well as the idea of classic. I am intrigued by the idea that a gradual transformation of an object can still yield an impression of the object being the same, being familiar (such as the point about restoring/rejuvenating works of art). Thus far perhaps we've been thinking about the hybrid as a different form, but what if it were the same form, altered in some slight way? Perhaps altered many times in small ways so that it was fundamentally "different" but still appeared the same?

Haecceity is originally a metaphysical concept that is both totally obscure and yet very familiar to all of us. It is the psychological attribution of an unobservable property to an object that makes it unique among identical copies. All objects may be categorized into groups on the basis of some shared property but an object within a category is unique by virtual of its haecceity. It is haecceity that makes your wedding ring authentic and your spouse irreplaceable, even though such things could be copied exactly in a futuristic science fiction world where matter duplication had been solved.

Haecceity also explains why you can gradually replace every atom in an object so that it not longer contains any of the original material and yet psychologically, we consider it to be the same object. That transformation can be total but so long as it has been gradual, we consider it to be the same thing. It is haecceity that enables us to accept restoration of valuable works of art and antiquities as a continuous process of rejuvenation. Even when we discover that we replace most of the cellular structures of our bodies every couple of decades, haecceity enables us to consider the continuity of our own unique self.

Link to all the responses here.

Investigating catalogue structures

As one method of investigation, I have begun mapping the layouts of different kinds of catalogues, and plan next to use these one-step-removed diagrams as ready-made structures to catalogue different information in new ways. For example, re-cataloguing/narrating a series of facebook photos through one of the above maps, or exploring a particular collection of items through the windows created by these catalogue structures.

The Book of the Future

Hendrickson in his article the Future of the Book states: 

"that as an industry, we should try to build a list of important concepts, features, and ideas that will help us all work towards building The Book of the Future." 

How might we address these in consideration of the output of our project?

1. Easy-to-use authoring tools that enable content creation and distribution
1. We have experienced this from the extreme design limitations in Apple Pages. The offset being the automatic/built-in accessibility features. This compromise is most apparent in the user's ability to customize the typography of the work. font size (not a trivial matter for the visually impaired), style and justification  (the majority of users would likely choose based on personal and culturally driven aesthetics rather than design best practices).
2. What does the equipment do well and how do we take full advantage of it?
2. Readily available in all formats
1. I want it on all my devices. Might be better to say that I want it in all/preferred contexts.
3. Continuous Updates (more tech-oriented and some non-fiction)
1. Mutability. Real-time revisions.
4. Rich media integration
1. Trans-media narratives.
5. Socially and personally connects readers to publisher/author/community
1. Holonarchy over hierarchy.
6. Engages the distracted and partial attention society
1. Packet knowledge.
7. Written and translated simultaneously
1. Collaborative processes, multiple authors
8. Gamification features
1. Expansion of what is narrative
9. Access from the source
1. Holonarchy over hierarchy.
10. Culture, staffing, and innovation
1. BRB
11. Open source
1. Holonarchy over hierarchy.
12. Priced fairly
1. BUSINESS

Hybridity

Our repeated use of hybrid has rendered it a bit opaque to me, so I revisited the dictionary.

Hybrid

Etymology

Known in English since 1601, but rare before c.1850. From Latin hybrida, a variant of ibrida (“a mongrel; specifically, offspring of a tame sow and a wild boar”), of unsure origin, possibly (a) somehow related to Ancient Greek ὕβρις (hybris, “outrage”)^[1], or (b) < the roots ús (“sow”) and ibro (“wild boar”)^[2]

Might we ask in what ways is a hybrid an outrage? A bastard? Or maybe, instead it is a kind of

Cultivar (plural cultivars)

A cultivated variety of a plant species or hybrid of two species.