I've finally moved to my own place,
www.brandonleedy.com
and you'll find all my new blog updates, portfolio, and contact info.
There's still a few rough edges, but I really like how it looks so far, and that its fairly reliable and customizable. (Thanks Tumblr!)
Thanks for reading, and I hope to hear from you soon.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
The Third & The Seventh
The Third & The Seventh from Alex Roman on Vimeo.
Some of the most beautiful CGI I have ever seen. In many scenes of this short film I was finding it hard to believe that it was computer generated. Oh, and it was all done by one person. ONE. Stunning.
Watch in Fullscreen, HD for the full experience.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Ranked and Defiled
Recently the Wall Street Journal posted a Best and Worst Jobs of 2010 list, and it seems to be making the rounds on twitter and blogs.
I don't understand why people believe this list holds any water at all. It seems that no one has looked into the group that has done this analysis nor have they looked into the methodology of what determines "best" and "worst".
The company who determined this jobs list is CareerCast.com. If you read the about us section on Career Cast you'll find that they're an online classified advertising company. They're business is classified advertising online for job positions. Not only is the CareerCast site littered with ads but if you follow the "JobsRated.com" site link to the Job rating list, it just redirects to CareerCast.com. My guess is that these numerically-based, spreadsheet-calculation list posts are merely meant to pull traffic to their site from The Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal holds the eyes of tons of traffic, traffic who are potentially looking to hire new people. If that traffic sees "CareerCast.com" and assumes credibility because WSJ posted the article, then boom! New money for Career Cast. Anyways, that's beside the point...
Now to methodology:
CareerCast lists their 5 criteria for determining position on the list:
Environment, Income, Employment Outlook, Physical Demands and Stress
I don't understand why people believe this list holds any water at all. It seems that no one has looked into the group that has done this analysis nor have they looked into the methodology of what determines "best" and "worst".
The company who determined this jobs list is CareerCast.com. If you read the about us section on Career Cast you'll find that they're an online classified advertising company. They're business is classified advertising online for job positions. Not only is the CareerCast site littered with ads but if you follow the "JobsRated.com" site link to the Job rating list, it just redirects to CareerCast.com. My guess is that these numerically-based, spreadsheet-calculation list posts are merely meant to pull traffic to their site from The Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal holds the eyes of tons of traffic, traffic who are potentially looking to hire new people. If that traffic sees "CareerCast.com" and assumes credibility because WSJ posted the article, then boom! New money for Career Cast. Anyways, that's beside the point...
Now to methodology:
CareerCast lists their 5 criteria for determining position on the list:
Environment, Income, Employment Outlook, Physical Demands and Stress
You can see their explanation of methodology HERE.
Let's look at this:
1) Environment is measured numerically in two categories:
Physically and Emotionally.
In both instances an undisclosed group [RED FLAG] is rating facets of Physical and Emotional Environment on a numerical basis where Physical Environment equals Emotional Environment [RED FLAG]. Ranking pre-supposed Physical and Emotional Environmental standards is ridiculous when most of their standards are entirely subjective! "Contact with the Public" is considered an Emotional Environment standard... however some would find this good and some bad. "Degree of Competitiveness" is also on the standards list. Most would agree competition is actually good UP TO A POINT... but this list either assumes only negative influence or that all competition is bad. Physically, standards such as "Stamina Needed" and "Necessary Energy" aren't defined at all... I bet there are programmers who go home more tired than carpenters and vice versa because their stamina and energy come from different places. Would you want a job where you're so physically tired that when you come home you fall asleep, or a job where you're so mentally drained, all you want to do is watch TV? What is worst? Who decides that? It's subjective, and to measure it numerically is ridiculous. [FLAG] [FLAG] [FLAG]
2) Income
Do I really need to say this? Predicting Income and Growth Potential in a market where your job could literally be gone the next day is insane.
Have we somewhat stabilized economically? Yes.
Are we out of the forest yet? Hell No.
Will we be by the end of the year? Do YOU think so? I don't... and guess what, neither does any of the financial forecasters, because they can't accurately predict future economic stability as it is! [FLAG]
Don't believe me? Check out the astonishing Act 5 of a recent episode of This American Life HERE where the "Planet Money" team interview some of the world's leading economic forecasters who admit that they barely understand what happened to the economy two years ago, much less be able to predict what's going to happen this year.
We can partially assume Income as an average of what people are being paid now, but we have no idea about Growth Potential in today's world [FLAG].
3) Employment Outlook
See "2) Income".
But honestly people, our own government can't keep straight unemployment records because once someone runs out of unemployment benefits they are removed from the unemployment rolls. Are supposed "improving job market" is really just their calculations gradually kicking off the "dead weight" of all the people who lost their jobs and are still unemployed but have been unemployed for so long that they no longer collect benefits. We can't properly predict Employment Outlook for receiving jobs when we don't even fully realize how many people are STILL unemployed. [RED FLAG]
4) Physical Demands
"...we awarded higher scores to jobs with greater Physical Demands and lower scores to jobs with lesser demands. "
So, if you are in a predominantly physical labor job, you score higher and are ranked worse. [FLAG] So the more sedentary you are, the better job you are in... Wait, What?! [FLAG] While sitting is nice, its what got us into the overweight mess that America is in right now. Just because I sit at my job does not make my job better. I could be pushing paper all day on my butt and then "go postal" (see the origin of that phrase). In contrast, I could be building homes for disaster victims all day and while physically I'm beat, I'm mentally and spiritually rewarded from the work I do for others. Physical work as a factor of "best" and "worst"? Come on. [FLAG]
5) Stress
The most glaring thing here is how physicality in a job again nets the most points which raise your score, giving you a "worse" job. [DOUBLE FLAG] But in addition, the list of 21 Stress Factors are mostly subjective... Quotas, Deadlines, Meeting the Public, Initiative Required, Advocacy, Win or Lose Situations... these are all things that ARE GREAT for a worker. These are things that make a job fulfilling because they are things to measure achievement from. If I had no deadlines, never Won, never needed any initiative, and never was asked to help someone else I would have a wholly UNREWARDING job. Now note, that may be different for others, but the point is that this list can't measure rewarding aspects of a job because what's rewarding is subjective and can't be measured by numbers.
I think the biggest proof in my suppositions here are in the results given.
Number 1 job: Actuary.
Actuary.
A risk assessor who's job is primarily numbers and statistics concerning death and tragedy. Sure he sits back, punches number and makes the big money... but how is that THE BEST? How many actuaries have a rewarding and fulfilling job? and how would anyone measure that? Good luck, maybe you should get a software programmer, seeing as they're number 2 on the list. I bet they all would love to do it.
Conclusion:
The truth is that having the "best" job isn't measured by the amount of physical work you do, whether you have to "have initiative", or even how much money you make... the "best" job comes from your own definition of fulfillment and reward. Why people are even giving these lists the time of day is beyond me. As an industrial designer, I noted that our position fell from #9 last year to #35 this year... does that mean I should have a worse job? I don't. I'm in a better job, a more fulfilling and rewarding job with more deadlines, quotas, and win/lose situations, but I am loving every minute of it. What gives?
I'm sure there are Actuaries, Software Developers, and Computer Systems Analysts who hate their job. They probably feel under-utilized and could be buried by bureaucracy of the company they work for and be in threat of losing their job due to an economy out of their control... But hey, on this list they rank pretty high.
THEY should be the happy ones.
Let's look at this:
1) Environment is measured numerically in two categories:
Physically and Emotionally.
In both instances an undisclosed group [RED FLAG] is rating facets of Physical and Emotional Environment on a numerical basis where Physical Environment equals Emotional Environment [RED FLAG]. Ranking pre-supposed Physical and Emotional Environmental standards is ridiculous when most of their standards are entirely subjective! "Contact with the Public" is considered an Emotional Environment standard... however some would find this good and some bad. "Degree of Competitiveness" is also on the standards list. Most would agree competition is actually good UP TO A POINT... but this list either assumes only negative influence or that all competition is bad. Physically, standards such as "Stamina Needed" and "Necessary Energy" aren't defined at all... I bet there are programmers who go home more tired than carpenters and vice versa because their stamina and energy come from different places. Would you want a job where you're so physically tired that when you come home you fall asleep, or a job where you're so mentally drained, all you want to do is watch TV? What is worst? Who decides that? It's subjective, and to measure it numerically is ridiculous. [FLAG] [FLAG] [FLAG]
2) Income
Do I really need to say this? Predicting Income and Growth Potential in a market where your job could literally be gone the next day is insane.
Have we somewhat stabilized economically? Yes.
Are we out of the forest yet? Hell No.
Will we be by the end of the year? Do YOU think so? I don't... and guess what, neither does any of the financial forecasters, because they can't accurately predict future economic stability as it is! [FLAG]
Don't believe me? Check out the astonishing Act 5 of a recent episode of This American Life HERE where the "Planet Money" team interview some of the world's leading economic forecasters who admit that they barely understand what happened to the economy two years ago, much less be able to predict what's going to happen this year.
We can partially assume Income as an average of what people are being paid now, but we have no idea about Growth Potential in today's world [FLAG].
3) Employment Outlook
See "2) Income".
But honestly people, our own government can't keep straight unemployment records because once someone runs out of unemployment benefits they are removed from the unemployment rolls. Are supposed "improving job market" is really just their calculations gradually kicking off the "dead weight" of all the people who lost their jobs and are still unemployed but have been unemployed for so long that they no longer collect benefits. We can't properly predict Employment Outlook for receiving jobs when we don't even fully realize how many people are STILL unemployed. [RED FLAG]
4) Physical Demands
"...we awarded higher scores to jobs with greater Physical Demands and lower scores to jobs with lesser demands. "
So, if you are in a predominantly physical labor job, you score higher and are ranked worse. [FLAG] So the more sedentary you are, the better job you are in... Wait, What?! [FLAG] While sitting is nice, its what got us into the overweight mess that America is in right now. Just because I sit at my job does not make my job better. I could be pushing paper all day on my butt and then "go postal" (see the origin of that phrase). In contrast, I could be building homes for disaster victims all day and while physically I'm beat, I'm mentally and spiritually rewarded from the work I do for others. Physical work as a factor of "best" and "worst"? Come on. [FLAG]
5) Stress
The most glaring thing here is how physicality in a job again nets the most points which raise your score, giving you a "worse" job. [DOUBLE FLAG] But in addition, the list of 21 Stress Factors are mostly subjective... Quotas, Deadlines, Meeting the Public, Initiative Required, Advocacy, Win or Lose Situations... these are all things that ARE GREAT for a worker. These are things that make a job fulfilling because they are things to measure achievement from. If I had no deadlines, never Won, never needed any initiative, and never was asked to help someone else I would have a wholly UNREWARDING job. Now note, that may be different for others, but the point is that this list can't measure rewarding aspects of a job because what's rewarding is subjective and can't be measured by numbers.
I think the biggest proof in my suppositions here are in the results given.
Number 1 job: Actuary.
Actuary.
A risk assessor who's job is primarily numbers and statistics concerning death and tragedy. Sure he sits back, punches number and makes the big money... but how is that THE BEST? How many actuaries have a rewarding and fulfilling job? and how would anyone measure that? Good luck, maybe you should get a software programmer, seeing as they're number 2 on the list. I bet they all would love to do it.
Conclusion:
The truth is that having the "best" job isn't measured by the amount of physical work you do, whether you have to "have initiative", or even how much money you make... the "best" job comes from your own definition of fulfillment and reward. Why people are even giving these lists the time of day is beyond me. As an industrial designer, I noted that our position fell from #9 last year to #35 this year... does that mean I should have a worse job? I don't. I'm in a better job, a more fulfilling and rewarding job with more deadlines, quotas, and win/lose situations, but I am loving every minute of it. What gives?
I'm sure there are Actuaries, Software Developers, and Computer Systems Analysts who hate their job. They probably feel under-utilized and could be buried by bureaucracy of the company they work for and be in threat of losing their job due to an economy out of their control... But hey, on this list they rank pretty high.
THEY should be the happy ones.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
My Most Played Albums of 2009
iTunes says that my most played albums from 2009 were:
I was surprised to see a few 2009 albums not be in the top 15. These 5 Artists all had albums from this year that I enjoyed but must not have listened too so much:
The XX, Neon Indian, Dirty Projectors, Noah and the Whale, and Spinnerette
Finally, I have to note that the song, "Bad Romance" by Lady Gaga had the 5th highest play count of my songs from 2009. Haha, I blame that entirely on our studio... though I must admit that "The Fame Monster" was a great EP from Lady Gaga. Also, Modest Mouse's "No One's First and You're Next" was a great EP from 2009. So there's that.
Well, what were your favorite albums from 2009?
Click to enlarge, it's pretty cool.
1. Animal Collective - Merriweather Post Pavilion
2. Grizzly Bear - Veckatimest
3. Passion Pit - Manners
4. Discovery - LP
5. Yeah Yeah Yeahs - It's Blitz
6. Dinosaur Jr - Farm
7. Franz Ferdinand - Tonight
8. Phoenix - Wolfgang Amadeus Phoenix
9. Florence and the Machine - Lungs
10. John Mayer - Battle Studies
11. Bat For Lashes - Two Suns
12. Arctic Monkeys - Humbug
13. Baroness - Blue Record
14. Neko Case - Middle Cyclone
15. Norah Jones - The Fall
I was surprised to see a few 2009 albums not be in the top 15. These 5 Artists all had albums from this year that I enjoyed but must not have listened too so much:
The XX, Neon Indian, Dirty Projectors, Noah and the Whale, and Spinnerette
Finally, I have to note that the song, "Bad Romance" by Lady Gaga had the 5th highest play count of my songs from 2009. Haha, I blame that entirely on our studio... though I must admit that "The Fame Monster" was a great EP from Lady Gaga. Also, Modest Mouse's "No One's First and You're Next" was a great EP from 2009. So there's that.
Well, what were your favorite albums from 2009?
Monday, December 14, 2009
Still Worth Showing...
Despite my feelings toward this quarter, I did enjoy my work and the reception it got from those observing during end of quarter show.
Here's my final board:
Here's a photo of my final model:
...and a photo of my deliverables at show:
Here's my final board:
(Click to enlarge)
Here's a photo of my final model:
(Powder Print & Hand Crafted)
...and a photo of my deliverables at show:
(The easel held storyboard images of current problems, which I used in my presentation to critics. They were hand painted in Photoshop.)
Critiques and comments welcome. Thanks.
Evaluate
My Work:
Well, I feel like I've made some headway in terms of understanding why I do certain things... as for improving them, it is a daily process. I need to be more loose and fast with my sketches which sometimes border on line renders. But, I am aware of the problem, and that's the first step to change, right? ;)
I feel I had one of the most enjoyable renders (and projects) this quarter in my Fleur coffee maker. I actually learned to make a decent HDRI environment so I could control lighting in my render and get a highlight where I wanted it. I feel like that really gave me some in-depth experience with Hypershot.
I also enjoyed my paintings I did for part of my storyboard. I seem to have found a method that is impressionistic and fun to do in a digital painting environment. I hope to try my hand at that for products in the future as a way to show an in-use emotional shot.
As for ID work, I think the critique for all of us said it well: "You need to all push it farther. We don't see anything new here." First, I must justify my project's existence: the use of historical time period as a design cue had a purpose. Also, there will be a niche market for high-end executive furniture that isn't pressboard, plastic and alien forms (no offense to the knolls and steelcases, but there will be).
That being said, I had recognized too far into the quarter that the area for innovation was in collaborative environments, not in the executive. So I corrected my focus and I feel, adjusted my project well despite being in the wrong end of the spectrum. If I had to do it again, I would have never gone down this historical route, but it was a good study of the period. And despite a lukewarm critique, the general public at the end of quarter show seemed to enjoy it. As I sat back to relax, I noticed many people stopped to get a more detailed look. I received compliments on my render, model, and choice of time period... (proof at least that I'm not the only one who enjoyed things like Mad Men from that time period). While public opinion doesn't necessarily justify my project as good design, it was a nice emotional counter to the critique. I believe one of my critics put it best:
DesCom As A Course:
I cannot endorse this course highly enough. I truly enjoyed this quarter of descom. There was a great balance of teaching via lecture and teaching via demo. Then that teaching was followed by active learning where we were applying knowledge from the demos/lectures. The portfolio and presentation lectures and subsequent class conversations were extremely helpful. Having such an enthusiastic, knowledgeable, and interested professor in Michael Roller was key to the great in-class experience. Even when class had ended, Mike would stay to discuss a concern or talk about projects in I.D. (which wasn't even his class!) and that was truly helpful this quarter, I'm extremely grateful for his help outside of the course.
My only discrepancy was with the order of projects, I felt the storyboard project and dining project should have swapped places. If earlier, we'd have more time on the dining project which required sketching and rendering. Also, the storyboard project would be better suited later in the quarter when our solutions were nailed down and could be better utilized. However, that was a minor concern, the class was truly a highlight of my week and proved to be one I learned an immense amount from.
ID As A Course:
This quarter's I.D. class was much like most every critique we received at the end of quarter: lukewarm. While I take responsibility for some of my aesthetic choices, there was a severe lack of critical help this quarter. The process utilized in the development of the workstation project was front-end heavy, moving so fast that I feel many of us settled on mediocre B and C stage renders that were completely unlike the finals we turned in. Instead of the steps we were taking in design actually making a difference, they were merely "finished" to meet an arbitrary week apart deadline. The amount of work was not the problem, as we knew and acknowledged that it took around that amount to decently explore a problem in the quarter. However, the work was so compressed by time, that the quality and/or concept development suffered.
When we presented our professor with questions about his opinion on specific parts, he would ignore them and then focus on minor elements, further ignoring larger concepts. This constant focus on small details like radii and cushion thickness instead of larger concepts like interaction between parts of the system and general form was frustrating. [Looking back, we could have desperately used critique from people like those professionals in our final critique who called out key issues we wanted to address, but were told not to worry about.] In addition, many of our design choices were driven by research or human factors knowledge... these things were heavily encouraged by our professor to be "right" but the results were uninteresting and uniform. When questioned by critics, we responded with research or ergonomic claims... which many of them ignored, wanting a more innovative form/function, damn the research and consequences.
Many of us, by the 3/4 mark of the quarter were so fed up with it, that we moved to working without feedback from him. We sought critique from fellow classmates and our descom professor, Mike. While this did help, it was probably far too late for most of us. Finally, I believe there was an inherent belief (encouraged by our I.D. professor) that we needed to design "real" things that weren't "concepts"... however, in reality, the only one who wanted that was our professor. In hindsight it almost seems that our best course of action this quarter would have been to redefine the stages of design to our pace, doing what we wanted in all areas of design and receive critique from outside professors. This system would require more personal responsibility, but I feel if it is in exchange for a far superior design, it would be well worth it and more than capable of achieving.
Here's to next quarter of class...
Well, I feel like I've made some headway in terms of understanding why I do certain things... as for improving them, it is a daily process. I need to be more loose and fast with my sketches which sometimes border on line renders. But, I am aware of the problem, and that's the first step to change, right? ;)
I feel I had one of the most enjoyable renders (and projects) this quarter in my Fleur coffee maker. I actually learned to make a decent HDRI environment so I could control lighting in my render and get a highlight where I wanted it. I feel like that really gave me some in-depth experience with Hypershot.
I also enjoyed my paintings I did for part of my storyboard. I seem to have found a method that is impressionistic and fun to do in a digital painting environment. I hope to try my hand at that for products in the future as a way to show an in-use emotional shot.
As for ID work, I think the critique for all of us said it well: "You need to all push it farther. We don't see anything new here." First, I must justify my project's existence: the use of historical time period as a design cue had a purpose. Also, there will be a niche market for high-end executive furniture that isn't pressboard, plastic and alien forms (no offense to the knolls and steelcases, but there will be).
That being said, I had recognized too far into the quarter that the area for innovation was in collaborative environments, not in the executive. So I corrected my focus and I feel, adjusted my project well despite being in the wrong end of the spectrum. If I had to do it again, I would have never gone down this historical route, but it was a good study of the period. And despite a lukewarm critique, the general public at the end of quarter show seemed to enjoy it. As I sat back to relax, I noticed many people stopped to get a more detailed look. I received compliments on my render, model, and choice of time period... (proof at least that I'm not the only one who enjoyed things like Mad Men from that time period). While public opinion doesn't necessarily justify my project as good design, it was a nice emotional counter to the critique. I believe one of my critics put it best:
"You've researched this thoroughly, but I think you're trying to solve a problem that a lot of people are struggling with... Herman Miller, Knoll, all of them... and they can't solve it yet either. 'How are we going to work with each other in the future?' Now you've got a solution here that solves one part of it, but not the rest. You have a good start for a next stage of design, and better yet, you already know where not to go."
DesCom As A Course:
I cannot endorse this course highly enough. I truly enjoyed this quarter of descom. There was a great balance of teaching via lecture and teaching via demo. Then that teaching was followed by active learning where we were applying knowledge from the demos/lectures. The portfolio and presentation lectures and subsequent class conversations were extremely helpful. Having such an enthusiastic, knowledgeable, and interested professor in Michael Roller was key to the great in-class experience. Even when class had ended, Mike would stay to discuss a concern or talk about projects in I.D. (which wasn't even his class!) and that was truly helpful this quarter, I'm extremely grateful for his help outside of the course.
My only discrepancy was with the order of projects, I felt the storyboard project and dining project should have swapped places. If earlier, we'd have more time on the dining project which required sketching and rendering. Also, the storyboard project would be better suited later in the quarter when our solutions were nailed down and could be better utilized. However, that was a minor concern, the class was truly a highlight of my week and proved to be one I learned an immense amount from.
ID As A Course:
This quarter's I.D. class was much like most every critique we received at the end of quarter: lukewarm. While I take responsibility for some of my aesthetic choices, there was a severe lack of critical help this quarter. The process utilized in the development of the workstation project was front-end heavy, moving so fast that I feel many of us settled on mediocre B and C stage renders that were completely unlike the finals we turned in. Instead of the steps we were taking in design actually making a difference, they were merely "finished" to meet an arbitrary week apart deadline. The amount of work was not the problem, as we knew and acknowledged that it took around that amount to decently explore a problem in the quarter. However, the work was so compressed by time, that the quality and/or concept development suffered.
When we presented our professor with questions about his opinion on specific parts, he would ignore them and then focus on minor elements, further ignoring larger concepts. This constant focus on small details like radii and cushion thickness instead of larger concepts like interaction between parts of the system and general form was frustrating. [Looking back, we could have desperately used critique from people like those professionals in our final critique who called out key issues we wanted to address, but were told not to worry about.] In addition, many of our design choices were driven by research or human factors knowledge... these things were heavily encouraged by our professor to be "right" but the results were uninteresting and uniform. When questioned by critics, we responded with research or ergonomic claims... which many of them ignored, wanting a more innovative form/function, damn the research and consequences.
Many of us, by the 3/4 mark of the quarter were so fed up with it, that we moved to working without feedback from him. We sought critique from fellow classmates and our descom professor, Mike. While this did help, it was probably far too late for most of us. Finally, I believe there was an inherent belief (encouraged by our I.D. professor) that we needed to design "real" things that weren't "concepts"... however, in reality, the only one who wanted that was our professor. In hindsight it almost seems that our best course of action this quarter would have been to redefine the stages of design to our pace, doing what we wanted in all areas of design and receive critique from outside professors. This system would require more personal responsibility, but I feel if it is in exchange for a far superior design, it would be well worth it and more than capable of achieving.
Here's to next quarter of class...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
