Yes, it’s also those other things that I think are crucial as well — the artifacts and scraps and unexpected moments. And the jetting about serves a vital role in getting one out into extra-ordinary conditions and situations which naturally force reconsidering things and seeing things from side. You have to fall out of routines in a way, unless it is your routine to always be out of the studio, in which case it won’t seem extra-ordinary.

I guess my point is to question my own assumptions about how and from where good design comes about — it may be more about the individuals and their capacity to refine ideas and principles, or to see things differently. I am pretty well convinced though that zealous field trippers are fearful of not having enough material to back up their assumptions or ideas. Good ideas are good ideas and may not need exhaustive testing/proof/empiricism behind them if an organization is prepared to trust itself, rather than quantities of field-derived data.

>> Agreed! I laughed so much that I…

That said, I personally find interesting to do some fieldwork in an informal (and too strict ways) as a way to collect these little nuggets (like weird pictures of peculiar discussion with a local fishermen here in Geneva) BUT yes I think other nuggets can come from lots of other domains (comic book, old TV-set manuals from the 50s, map of a South-American country, a tuna can, etc.). Perhaps it’s always the same story: some people take things way too seriously and find that is a way to “reduce risk”, “go out of the box” (sometimes it’s “get back in the box” or another kind of crap. People should be more laid-back and less serious I guess. Brrrrrr scary.