As a design student, I've been trained to believe in the near
infallibility of gestalt principles: the whole is greater than the sum
of its parts. As an American, I've been trained to believe in the
power of democratic collaboration: many hands make light work, and two
heads are better than one.

So why is a three-legged race clumsy and slow?

i don't think it would have to be clumsy and/or slow if the two
participants were so of one mind that they moved in a sort of
unison.... but they'd still be slower than one person- probably
because of the nature of the human machine and it being used in a sort
of impeded sub-standard mode. it has been 'designed' to function a
certain way--- tying it to another doesn't automatically expand the
strength of the single unit... it introduces a new set of variables
that need to be taken into account when grading overall performance---
the standards change (unit of measurement - 3-legged race vs 2, and
ideas of speed, etc) the overall outcome of learning to reach a
consensus of movement and directional force benefits the two
attempting the race and subverts the idea of 'winning' as much as
learning to work together. unless everyone else ALSO has three legs
and they go to a different school and have a different mascot--- then
we wear ugly hats and try to beat them to prove somehow that we are
superior.

My experience in Paris was that they're much less concerned with
moving the mass in a single direction. Instead of our cozy, democratic
attempts to bring culture to the masses, they glorify their avant-
garde artists, designers, and cultural icons. The talented few reach
new cultural and aesthetic plateaus, and somehow it just eventually
filters down (or not) to those outside of those circles. We still
think of France as one of the most refined nations/cultures in the
world, and yet they don't do it democratically.

someone told me this conversation was pedantic, but i don't know what
that means.

On Nov 26, 4:23 pm, seecoy <chris....@gmail.com> wrote:

from my brother Nathan:

"i'm wondering what role our relationships with and views of large
corporations play in this country, and which is the result of which
(or if it's an endless feedback loop of human nature--greed--that has
simply been going for too long and needs to be reset). while one
component of great design, music, literature, and art is that they
seem to touch on something universal that we can relate to, it often
happens ahead of its time, and is not appreciated by those only
looking for superficial distractions, or entertainment. there isn't
money in the avant-garde without the backing of some sort of
aristocracy. our culture essentially deifies that which is most
financially successful, seeking to create products that can be
accepted universally, offensive to no one..."

feedback loop of human nature? you should check out ian hacking.

I think that the critical element that makes something meaningful is
the passage of time. Sure, the avant-garde is great, but
only time tells what elements of the avant-garde are passed on, are
assimilated, and find currency with the next generation of avant-
garde.
Tragically, that is why most great artists are only appreciated after
they die--because it takes that long for a truly avant-garde artist's
ideas to find some place in
a new generation.

I do take exception to the idea that only avant-garde work is good, or
admirable--or rather, that work must be incomprehensible to the masses
because it is so far ahead of its time. I think that some of the
greatest works of art, design, music, etc. are easy to understand (at
least on some level) for everyone. Besides, I do think that only truly
great design actually can be understood by many people--even across
cultures. Yes, it must touch those universal truths, but it is not
easy or simple. But I reject the notion that it has to be
incompressible.

However, how long should the comprehension take? minutes, hours,
years, generations? I think that the best work invites significant
comprehension on several timeframes--Beethoven's symphonies can be
enjoyed in the very moment for the experience, but also invite deeper
contemplation over repeated performances.

On Nov 27, 3:25 pm, Matthew <matt...@chrislip.com> wrote:

--Back to gestalt and 3-legged race

Gestalt in terms of synergy implies that 1+1=3
The 3-legged race is 1+1=.5

The law of diminishing returns differentiates the outcomes
Suppose the following:
1 jet engine costs $100
It can pull 100 lbs

2 jet engines can pull 300 lbs at a cost of $200

Together they can pull more weight than the sum of each engine.

But, adding a 3rd jet engine only provides an extra 100 lbs of force
since the engines themselves are heavy and create wind resistance.
Cost of 3 engines = $300, Benefit = 400 lbs. pulling force

Adding a forth creates so much weight and lag that it provides 0 lbs
extra pulling force
Cost of 4 engines = $400, Benefit = 400 lbs pulling force

Adding a 5th creates a negative effect of -50 lbs pulling force
Cost of 5 engines = $500, Benefit = $350

We now have a similar result of the 3-legged race.

Milton Glaser said this a different way. JUST ENOUGH IS MORE

"Less is not necessarily more. Being a child of modernism I have heard
this mantra all my life. Less is more. One morning upon awakening I
realised that it was total nonsense, it is an absurd proposition and
also fairly meaningless. But it sounds great because it contains
within it a paradox that is resistant to understanding. But it simply
does not obtain when you think about the visual history of the world.
If you look at a Persian rug, you cannot say that less is more because
you realise that every part of that rug, every change of colour, every
shift in form is absolutely essential for its aesthetic success. You
cannot prove to me that a solid blue rug is in any way superior. That
also goes for the work of Gaudi, Persian miniatures, art nouveau and
everything else. However, I have an alternative to the proposition
that I believe is more appropriate. 'Just enough is more'."

It follows that adding too much to a Persian rug will also detract
from the design. Balance equals perfection. I think this is what
Christ meant when he said,  "that which is more or less than this is
evil."

Designers must also be economists.

It's like Coco Chanel said: before a design team leaves the house, it
should look in the mirror and remove one member.

Another thought is that the 3-legged race is an inapt illustration of
synergy. The thing you have in this case is duplication of effort and
inefficient allocation of resources. Each actor is not free to use
all
his resources (his legs) to contribute to the whole.
Also, you have overlapping and conflicting responsibilities. (two
heads controlling one leg). Every decision affects the other actor in
the system. It can't be greater than the sum of the parts because
some
of the parts are effectively taken away by being bound, and decision-
making is slowed by the need to act in concert.

Without specialization of function, adding units doesn't increase the
overall result. the added work is wasted in duplication and
coordination.