synthesis

"What is jazz?" my professor asks my Jazz in America class. We respond with blank stares. In my mind, I'm only imagining swing dancers, saxophones and Louis Armstrong.

But throughout this semester, he has revealed to us how broad and far reaching jazz really is. Originating as syncretism between African and European musical traditions by African slaves during colonial times in America, jazz emerged in the form of work songs and blues. This "musicking" eventually developed into the different subgenres of jazz as we know it. Ragtime, at the turn of the century, gave way to big band music and then swing. After swing came bebop, cool jazz, hard bop. Free jazz, fusion, new age and post modern followed suit, overlapping one another as they developed. As I listen to examples of pieces from all these different periods of jazz, I can't help but notice that the toe-tapping rhythm of Ellington can differ so greatly from the frenzied virtuosity of Coltrane, which in itself seems totally unrelated to the electric pastiche of John Zorn! And yet they are all collectively still considered jazz?

It is important to not just consider the music itself, but the circumstances from which jazz arose. Colonialism, wars, economic booms and busts, urbanization, the civil rights movement, black power, developing technology, newly emerging modes of entertainment, etc. all contributed to the development of jazz. One cannot simply say that jazz is a style of music that has a certain "sound" because history has told us otherwise. But rather, jazz is a form of musical behavior that arose and continues to develop as a response to circumstances, whether it be because of political, economic or social situations or as a reponse to another form of jazz itself.

Why is all of this even relevant to the history of industrial design? I think the history of jazz gives us a clear picture of history itself: actions and reactions to former reactions (think Hegel's thesis, antithesis and synthesis dialectic). Like jazz and its many subsets, industrial design history can be compartmentalized into individual movements through time with significant designers at the helm of each period. But to look solely through such a narrow lense calls for rote memorization and useless regurgiation. I think there is greater significance in seeing the larger picture and understanding the ways in which the events of the past are intertwined in a complex fabric called history.

Even though this semester's history of ID course has not been approached in a traditional, analytical and chronological sort of way, I feel that I have a greater understanding of industrial design as a whole. I've learned that just because something has passed, it is not relegated to death. History can still be very alive: it inspires us, it teaches us, it informs us. And it is constantly being made. It is also a balancing act of things in tension that indiviudals seek to mitigate. We look to history to better the present and to prepare for the future.

I'm also beginning to understand myself better as an industrial designer and the role that my classmates, the future designers of the world, and I will play in a place that is ever evolving and in need of solutions and change. Through these essays over the past semester, I've learned about the importance of the cross-disciplinary approach, design for social and environmental impact, meaning in design and the balance of art and design. But even more so, I've learned how all these things relate to me personally. To spare myself from sounding like a self help book, I will refrain from describing this as "The Beginning of the Road to Self Discovery." But given that I decided to say it anyway, you get my drift.

in conclusion,
this is not the end.