I think what's more important than ideas being found and brought more into reality is how they are fitted into society especially ideas where we might need the help of others. If an idea is couched in the wrong way and meets the wrong person for approval then it's not that it's time is wrong but it's placement and as time goes on and the ideas I'm given seem to be much more in this territory then it behoves me to think more about this idea of placing ideas where theres more chance of them being accepted.
And I kinda realise too that the idea itself doesn't matter so much as the underlying understanding that'll come from being more realistic about applying ideas in a way that makes their approval content greater and more likely to see fruition. It's like the flow of water and paths of least resistance so the idea is just the little boat and the placement is putting it on the water to see how the stream flows.
Getting the buildings behind the ASB in Grey Lynn using the Mens shed prototype combined with a art gallery of sorts then is the little boat and the stream of water is the ASB management hierachy and the challenge then isn't so much just about the boat but placing the boat within the watercourse where it'll have the longest journey.
Now the selling point to get the ASB on board is somewhat convoluted and would require quite a bit of foresight on the part of the reviewer to even see the relevance of such a step and what I have found over the years is that foresight is not something in common usage at least not in the lower echelons of commercial life. People are just trying to get on with the work they're given within a structured and understood model of how it all works and no matter how efficient a suggestion of change is it'll rock that boat so any rocking of boats has to be in a place where the boat has a chance to rock, can be viewed rocking, and any ripples created allowed time to wash on shores that won't destroy the marine life living on those shores.
This is why ideas need to find the right bay to be tested in. The idea doesn't really matter even if it's brilliant and required and all that other stuff... that's completely beside the point and the point is that structures in needing stability will resist instability even if it offers a greater stability in the long run.
This is the thing with structures. Our most efficient structures aren't actually structurally strong until the very last piece goes in and makes them stable and this requires, this type of building, a soft touch and alot of effort put into stabilising networks to get this unstable, until finished, structure working as a whole.
Mostly, what we do as humans, is overbuild from the foundation up where each successive layer is a structure in itself that allows each individual part to stand alone whilst other parts are added. Immensely inefficient really but it's a way of building that while limiting height and adding inertia it's something we all feel is safe because we add layers of rigidity, rigid upon rigid, and so safe footings upon safe footings.
The trouble with this though is that it becomes very difficult to change the structure. It can only really be changed from the top down simply because the top is resting on all that below it and if you take out parts of the middle or the bottom so much above it is reliant on that foundation of overbuilding then the whole becomes unstable.
Whereas efficient design of structures where all the parts are equally stressed to hold up the structure any attempt to enact change or modify the structure is felt by the whole thing and to remove one part is quite simple as it's job is determined by it's use and so all one has to do is remodel the use and add the required support to undergo change.
This is somewhat the same as the overbuilt structure except the quality of perception of change is modified by the rigidity of the layers of structure which inhibit the feedback through the structure and so change acts in convoluted pathways and is more easily misunderstood.
So while I can stand off to the side of the ASB as a structure and see that the idea I'm carrying is valid, that the banking giant would be in the advantage by being associated with changes in the economic environment which are yet to be easily seen and the simple fact of them being in possible association to such ideas is an advantage they would reap the rewards of without actually doing much... it is an altogether different proposition to see the benefits from within the structure of the ASB itself with all it's overbuilt preponderance.
No comments:
Post a Comment