Massive Change: registering opinion
Originally uploaded by blackbeltjones.

… the more stuffy galleries stay the same…

I wasn’t expecting to be impressed by the Bruce Mau instigated and designed “Massive Change” exhibition, and the densely-set, impenetrable and prententious prose that decorated the first room just reinforced my preconception.

But then, pretty quickly it hit it’s stride with innovative displays of process and prototype models for Dean Kamen’s Segway and his kerb-climbing wheelchairs; and input tools for computer system of the last 30 years. Other rooms like one focussed on types of scientific imaging, and another on visualisations of the Earth were dramatically staged and rich with content.

However, the exhibition’s stated goal is that it is not about “the world of design, but the design of the world” (something touched-on here before now) – it’s job is to infect visitors with possibility and have them carry that out into the world. It is also a show that relies heaviliy on visual evidence, often densely-overlayed and spectacularly staged visual evidence, that might require some reflection from the visitor before the ideas could be taken on board.

Why is it then that Vancouver Art Museum doesn’t allow anyone to take photos of this visual evidence? I asked and was given a standard policy line.

Liz Goodman and myself then just resorted to a kind of cameraphone cat-and-mouse with the gallery attendents and trying to look like we were texting with our phones when they circled by. We were timing their passes and whispering “cover-me” by the end of our visit, like we were near completion of some imaginary “Metal-Gear Gallery” stealth-imaging game.

If the goal of the show is to instill massive change, why restrict the spread of the ideas contained within the show to within the walls of the museum?

Mau would do well to revise the next staging to allow some kodak moments for aspiring design activists.

The two John Grays
Originally uploaded by blackbeltjones.

Conflated comically at Helsinki Academic Bookstore.

From a review of John Gray’s “Heresies” in the Guardian:

“Gray sees our faith in progress – “the Prozac of the thinking classes” – as the illusion that underlies the most egregiously mistaken political and social policies of the present day. Certainly there is such a thing as progress, but it is a fact only in the realm of science, while “in ethics and politics it is a superstition”. Throughout his work Gray hammers relentlessly against the notion, first advanced in the Renaissance and reified in the Enlightenment, that history moves inexorably in a straight line, and that human nature will necessarily improve as our knowledge accumulates. He grants that in some areas things do get better: we have abolished judicial torture, for example, and modern dentistry is a great boon. The mistake, he contends, the wilful, foolish and tragic mistake, is to imagine that more dental implants and fewer thumbscrews will make us into better beings. “Human knowledge grows, but the human animal stays much the same.”

From a review of John Gray’s “Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus: A Practical Guide for Improving Communication and Getting What You Want in Your Relationships”:

“Unfortunately, his overuse of gimmicky, often silly analogies and metaphors makes his otherwise down-to-earth guide hard to take seriously. Here Martians (men) play Mr. Fix-It while Venusians (women) run the Home-Improvement Committee; when upset, Martians “go to their caves” (to sort things out alone) while Venusians “go to the well” (for emotional cleansing). While graphically illustrative, the hyperbolic, overextended comparisons, particularly in the chapters that refer to men as rubber bands and women as waves, significantly detract from Gray’s realistic insights. “

I am now pretty convinced that these books were authored by two different people who just happen to have the same name.