A Rumination on the Importance of Intent by Elliott Earls

[Prof. Madad]

Read A Rumination on the Importance of Intent by Elliott Earls share some thoughtful comments; identify key themes and your reaction to them. How does Earls' selection of characters, storytelling and characterization enhance (or detract) from the subject of the essay? Draw on your personal experience and observations in your response.

Minimum three paragraphs.

[Sabrina]

Similarly to a piece of design, bodies of writing instantly get more engaging as the more detail is put into it. While there certainly is beauty, and unique challenges, in things that are simple, direct, and to the point (in both writing and art), I feel there is so much more to digest from something that goes deeper, is more thought driven, and in turn more complex. Earl’s “Rumination of the Importance of Intent” does just that, and quite successfully – particularly in his opening description of his Uncle Doug and father. One could so easily make those first few paragraphs the most dry, disengaging material – but Earl takes the opportunity to vividly set the stage. It’s through both his character/style of writing, which is pretty humorous, and the detail in his depictions that Earl holds my attention, making it easy to visualize the type of men he’s describing. For instance, he could’ve said “our home”, but instead it’s an “English Tudor”, or “his cigarette smolders”, rather it’s a “Lucky Strike” that smolders, or his dad’s “loafers”, are actually “cordovan tasseled” loafers. There’s just so much more to visualize by the way that he puts it. Maybe that’s more a lesson in being a skilled writer, but I think it’s translatable to design. It’s always best to elevate a piece from being vertical to horizontal, or one-note to spanning a wide range. There’s a subway poster for FIT that says, “For the truly creative mind, a good idea is just the beginning”. While a little cheesy, and not incredibly profound, I like this sentiment and think it’s applicable to what we’re discussing here. 

[michael]

I found it helpful to explore this narrative through the context of
conversation. Don't know why...

----------------------------

"When you trace the bubbles of thought and action down beyond their
source, you arrive at the the Aleph. The beginning, the place where
according to Borges “without admixture or confusion, all places of the
world, seen from every angle, coexist.” beyond which it is impossible
to arrive. And if with courage, you press on, tracing this spiraling
path ever downward beyond the beginning, beyond the Aleph. One arrives
at the impossibility of that unitary thing “from which words and
thoughts return without having attained it”"

Interesting thoughts, Mr. Earls. I like the Borges quote. And the
"Aleph" makes the bubbles...cool

"Any work from typography to film, is manifest at that imperceptible
point beyond the Aleph, and before thought or action."

Hmm.

"The die is cast out side the clutch of time, in the moment of
intent."

Wait, how does such intangible ether, ("outside the clutch of time"),
cast the die, birth a point of no return, the point where what is to
happen is carved in stone. Seems like a whole lot of commitment from
nothing... As it relates to the birth of the universe, I can dig it
but doesn't one arrive at inevitability at different times during
different creative quests? And Intent? How does intent exist outside
the clutches of time? It seems to be that the die is indeed cast in
the moment of intent but that intent doesn't exist in such a universe
as, say, the Aleph likely would. I'll let you finish.

"Like the bubbles rising slowly in the Miller®‚ beer of our lives,
intent gives rise to thought. Thought gives rise to action. Action
manifests work. And over time, all of these manifest a life."

The true 'non-mater', is the nothing before the Aleph, "from which
words and thoughts return without having attained it". You say it is
impossible to arrive there so why relate so much to it? It cannot be
conceived so we should just start at, or rather consider it the true
A, no? You say earlier that "Any work from typography to film, is
manifest at that imperceptible point beyond the Aleph, and before
thought or action." I agree that works, or the ideas for works are
manifest often before thought or action, but born before their
origins? Born before their birth? This conception, immaculate or
otherwise is the true Aleph, and to say that works are manifest beyond
it discredits the very concept OF Aleph.
Now, if one perceives Aleph as an idea, here is the existence of both
intent before idea and idea before intent. I may be struggling to
decipher the literal interpretations from the metaphysical, but
intention can be found in ones will to conceive an idea, or an idea,
as it falls out of nowhere , can just smack you upside the head which
intern generates intention. As Y is sometimes a vowel, Intent can be
the beginning, but isn't always.

I think I'd make some changes to your order of elements. To repeat
Intent seems to be to closely linked to the origin, the Aleph, but
does not always exist as the Alpha. And thought. Broadly speaking,
thought is sort of a prerequisite. It may just be unconscious. So
conscious thought (ct) and unconscious thought (uct) should be
factored into the equation(s):

1.) (uct) > idea > (ct) > Intent > (ct) > Action > (ct) > Product/
Works

2.) (ct) > intent > (ct/uct) > idea > (ct) > Action > (ct) >
Product/Works

What do you think?

"As in the spit shine, each piece we undertake is comprised of an
accretion, a building up of an infinite and self referentially endless
series of decisions in the present moment. In each of those moments
like Siddartha, we find ourselves at a crossroads. And in each of
those moments the individual has to weigh and battle an endless list
of societal pressures; career goals, financial expectations, time
constraints etc..."

Thats for sure.

"But ultimately it is the unequivocal denial and rejection of these
concerns that is paramount. I hesitate to use the term, but it is
inescapable."

Oh boy...


- Michael Ryterband


On Sep 19, 8:41 am, "Prof. Madad" <ama...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Read *A Rumination on the Importance of Intent* by Elliott Earls share some

> thoughtful comments; identify key themes and your reaction to them. How does
> Earls' selection of characters, storytelling and characterization enhance
> (or detract) from the subject of the essay? Draw on your personal experience
> and observations in your response.
>
> Minimum three paragraphs.
>

>  earls_intent.pdf
> 326KViewDownload

[David Saunders]

Really? I give Mr. Earls credit for writing about the creative process, however I disagree with the end point of his analogy. Why stop at the intent? Creation, not only for the creator, but the recipients as well, is not a one way process. Mr. Earls' analogy is like walking past a house and only looking thru the window. He views this process as one that starts from this "unitary thing", however he credits it to something that is unattainable. I don't believe that this unitary thing is unattainable, it is constantly attainable. We as the recipients as well as creators, have created this "unitary thing". To paraphrase Barthes', a rose signifies passion, however that is only because we deemed it to. We created language, whereby we created the "meaning" of all of our words. So couldn't it be argued that if we created all the meanings, then the "unitary thing" is a process of our collective creation. The assumption that below thought and action is this "unitary thing" implies that we did not create our reality (which, in his diagram, references Kierkegaard's "leap to faith"). Our reality is a product of our collective creation, therefor nothing can truly be unattainable thru words. 

However, true creation is never finished, their is no finite masterpiece. One can always refine and refine and refine, a true "creator" (which I now use to reference any individual with creative aspirations) knows when a piece is complete, but only complete for his specific audience at a specific time. We are always redefining and creating our collective language ("bootylicious" is now included in the dictionary. Whether or not I agree with it's inclusion in the dictionary is another matter, however it still stands that we are constantly redefining our language). We will always continue to redefine our collective language, it is human nature to define, organize, and rewrite. While Mr. Earls stops to look at the window, he doesn't acknowledge that we as a collective conscious built the house.

[anne chiang]

In this story, I think Earls wrote this story out very well, It was
interesting throughout the story, partly because I have family members
just like those he described in this story (and my mother is exactly
like the one in the story, a lady who collects furniture and antique).
Just like what Sabrina had already mentioned in her response, the way
Earls describes the scene like "English tudor style home" to "Lucky
Strikes", the way he incorporates descriptions like that really
creates an image in my head while reading it. In my Business and
Design class, we have an assignment where we need to come up with our
own company and there was a girl in my class and her business was
called "The Summer Cottage" and it was a bakery. As she described the
business plan behind this project, just the name of her bakery had
illustrated a whole scene in my head, an open field, tall grass,
beautiful flowers, and a cottage in the middle of the field. I thought
Earls really illustrated this story pretty well with his choice of
words.

[Jessie Oh]

This all came together in the last sentence but I was stuck on
'undimmed by the anesthesia of memory' for a while. It's a beautifully
composed sentence and carries a heavy sense of nostalgia he was trying
to communicate through beer bubbles. Though the 'undimming' of the
moment is only another layer of intent, he seems to praise it for what
it is. For Elliott, intention is weak and manipulated by ourselves. It
is born pure but reborn through self-built expectations. Perhaps
societal constraints can be understood as the anesthesia of thoughts
that makes it impossible for one to reach where thought begins.
I've always been attached to existentialist thoughts, and Elliott's
process of intention questions life's spontaneity. Nothing exists from
the top of the glass but always from the 'Aleph', as we absorb the
environment and spit out distracted thoughts. The way he ended the
essay with an open-minded thought, seems to encourage getting closer
to the core but it is definitely unreachable. If it wasn't, would work
exist? The condition of existing is just a huge filter that we have
ultimate control over. Where purity begins is a privately owned and
decided.
This all seems so heavy especially because I just finished watching
"Tree of Life". It makes me want to go watch reality t.v., what does
this say about the true nature of myself..

On Sep 19, 8:41 am, "Prof. Madad" <ama...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Read *A Rumination on the Importance of Intent* by Elliott Earls share some

> thoughtful comments; identify key themes and your reaction to them. How does
> Earls' selection of characters, storytelling and characterization enhance
> (or detract) from the subject of the essay? Draw on your personal experience
> and observations in your response.
>
> Minimum three paragraphs.
>

>  earls_intent.pdf
> 326KViewDownload

[Jacob]

Summary of main take-away for me: Basically, the author is stressing the importance of the "Why" in relation to the (subsequent) "How" and "What." 

Idea vs. Execution is a really common topic for discussion, so its nice to take a step back(wards) and remember that before idea or execution is purpose/"intent." I think its a great lesson to keep in mind — it's easy to lose sight of why we are doing what we are doing when we are preoccupied with just figuring out what to do and how to do it. Constantly keeping in mind what your goal is seems obvious, but it seems something that lots of people have a hard time doing. 

It's often way harder to argue about the merits of different intentions than it is to discuss things that are more easily held up against metrics for success. For example, its easy to say "Getting your shoes shined by a professional at the airport is more efficient than giving them a spit shine on your couch." That argument is totally separate argument from "Shining your shoes is a waste of time because the appearance of your shoe is unimportant." This is probably why Earls jokes about "Purity" being a "problematic term."

[Mathieu C.]

There all a couple of thoughts that arose from reading this test from Earls. The first thought that came to mind was when I read the description of the father and his appearance, how he focuses so much on the surface of his being rather then improving his being as a whole. When one uses half of his concentration just on his exterior, material and shallow perspective of his being then he is only paying half attention on whatever else he is doing.

We are always influenced by our surroundings and our trend. Once it was for a woman to be plump and round it represented wealth and was sexy. Times change but we always cling on to the past or the closes point of the Alef, here I think of the mother who collects antique and thinks of a time that they can relate to the most (Midnight in Paris).

The Second thought is with the shoe shine ritual, that never changes and is repeated constantly. I see as any task with graphic design, martial arts, film, etc. There is a muscle memory that builds, by repeating all the moves, all the technique, the intent to create an illusion "purity" I believe, but it isn't it just becomes instinct. Purity can't exist when one is subject to other matters then himself, when one is affected by every thing they see one always think of how it will benefit him but must also exceed the costs.

[Jessica Mazur]

I enjoyed reading this story because of all the descriptive details
Earl uses. The details he use makes me draw parallels from his family
to mine. The way he speaks about his father being a man who cares
about the way he looks and his appearance is similar to my father. He
reminds me of my fathers wardrobe at home and the shelves my dad has
with lines of shiny black shoes. All the shoes look identical and
they are all in perfect condition. My father takes pride in his
appearance just like earls father. More importantly than looking put
together my father want to look and be perceived as a hard worker and
a gentleman and i think thats what earl wanted to show us with his
father as well.

[NoraG]

The most important element to anything in life, the author suggests, is 'why', or the intent, which subsequently leads to how and what. The process, the work (the bubbles rising to the top, and ending at the foamy head of his Uncle's beer) are the fruits of the labor, but Earls is correct to point out that the intent (why) is necessary to proceed to the next levels, of thought, ideas, work, progress, and product. I find his storytelling and strange diagram helpful, because I don't think it has often been taught in our COMD classes about this process. Many of my experiences have dealt with the final product straight from the beginning of the process, from the first crit, when its sometimes impossible to envision the final product. It is helpful to see it from Earls' perspective, to start from not only the beginning but even further back, an idea that seems inaccessible.
   I enjoyed his storytelling. For instance, it was funny to hear language of an older man who says he was seven at the time. He goes back, far back into his memory and retrieves a small detail, the bubbles rising in a glass. Just that memory underscores his point about the importance of the moment of intent upon all subsequent actions.
  
  

[Chris Kelsch]

I found this reading very interesting but confusing. To me it appears
unnatural to be able to break down the creative process to such a
science, but Elliott Earl's analogies and narratives prove to make
good discussion points. His observations and details in his narratives
prove to characterize his awareness of the images around and attention
to detail. His writings make me wonder of how my own mind and creative
process communicate. I also wonder, is there a process to anything or
is there a process to everything?

[Kevin Romero]

This is a cluster of single thoughts I wrote down... (might be confusing)

The endless stream of bubbles that Earls witnessed (the bubbles that formed 1/2 inch above the bottom of the glass) is mainly a result of the remnants from the salt grains that sank combined with the imperfections of the bottom of the glass. The visible bubbles are created from single micro bubbles (carbon dioxide molecules) that cluster around a single point (glass imperfections,impurities etc.) It is at this point that the cluster of micro bubbles can attach themselves and coalesce. The cluster grows bigger and becomes a single visible bubble. This bubble rises and adds to the cluster (foam) a top the beer.

My view of this process: 

...single >> cluster >> single >> cluster >> single >> cluster...

The process of creation seems to have a consistent pattern, and although the process may stray off the beaten path, it eventually reverts back to the pattern. The result can vary because of the process and/or the variety of single elements used within the process. 

The moment of intent is not the imperfection in the bottom of the glass nor is it the cluster of micro bubbles. It's not even the single micro bubbles. The moment of intent is the point at which the invisible micro bubbles begin to rise, and just before they form into a single (visible) bubble.  

After this point, the stream of ideas and thoughts rise and begin to cluster and so begins the process.

Earls mother is representative of a belief. 

Earls father is representative of a process. 

Earls uncle is representative of outside influence and variety. 

The image of the bubbles in the glass is the Imperfection around which Earls ideas began to cluster.

A piece of work created with the focus on the cluster or final look is flawed (whether the flaw is visible or not). A piece of work created with the focus on process alone is flawed. A piece of work created with the focus on purpose and intent being the driving force behind behind every decision... has substance.