This is one of the things that I have been wanting to find an answer to since long. Being a photographer and designer is all about subjectivity.
When we view an art / design we start with an impression of it. Over a time we start to develop an opinion about it. And these opinions over a period turn into judgments. These judgments are what we call critiques. Thus if we analyze, any judgment is therefore ultimately what is what the judge thinks about it. And these jugdments are subjective. Thus criticism is a subjective act. A critic is a judge of a piece of art, who gives his or her subjective judgments based on the opinions formulated after the impression of the artwork.
Any design we do, any photograph we take is all about "one's own" ideas. Thus we have the option to believe these subjective opinions for getting an idea of the showcased piece. So from the above example and from the comments over time that I have received on it, an impression would be "beautiful shot!". An opinion would be, "great shot!! a little dark but very nice" A judgment (critic) would be something like "An over all brightening of the shadows would bring this boy out from the shadows, isolating him and transforming this from a cute picture to a WOW picture. He is hard to focus on because of the aforementioned darkness."
Over a long period of time a debate has been going on in my mind about, we as designers having to create for objectivity. However, I understand that, there is subjectivity all around. As discussed in one of my class, a critique is an entirely subjective opinion. When the judgment is passed, by these critics or rather subject experts, (which again are subjective) we tend to believe them more than we would to a classmate or any other person (not a subject expert).
So ultimately we are designing for a subjective opinion, with the hope that the critic’s subjective opinion matches ours. This would lead to a larger audience believing the subjective opinions of the critics (as they are the subject exerts) and over a period of time, spanning across many people, the design becomes objective.
Similarly for a photograph. There will always be difference in an opinion if different people are to see one same photograph. No photograph will appeal to all. Or in other words, everyone WILL NOT agree on the same points. Being a designer and a photographer enables one to take criticism positively. This is one thing I have really tried to learn.
Reflections from McCarthy and Wright: Technology as Experience. Have you ever felt the adrenaline rushing through you in a movie.. or the sound of silence falling into the valley.. onto to rise into a crescendo, only to fall back into an inquisitiveness... that slowly slowly catches you.. comforts you.. and then .. then there is the sudden jerk of emotion again .. and the cycle keeps repeating itself again and again... You keep moving from one an experiences to another... In the end you say .. What an amazing Experience! Movies after movies , roller coaster rides after rides... and photo exhibitions after exhibitions..
Here we talk about the Rhythmic Dance of an aesthetic expression. Dewey previously mentions about the rhythms of life, tensions and releases of engagement, and feelings of vulnerability in the face of our own needs and desires. Thus "rhythmic flow of life is the basis of our experience of meaning and value in the world." Basically there are four components to it. It has an internal, dynamic structure. Its called the Cumulation, the Conservation, the Tension and the Anticipation.
Roughly Cumulation is the build up of the experience in the absence of a priori information about the experience. This is a build up over time. The human capacity of deriving meanings over things increases in a temporal flow. Cumulation is a thing of the past, leading to the present. Without such a build-up there is no fulfillment and without fulfillment there is no aesthetic experience.
Conservation is the tendency to hold onto the some of what one has gone through before, in-order to make sense and a better experience of what is in present. Conservation is in the present. This takes cues from the past and is creating the experience along the present. An example for this could be you enjoy a particular kind of music more, if you have listened to that music before. Like say Jazz music.
Tension is where the fun begins! This is where movie makers make most of their money! Music invariably plays an important role in the tension. Tension refers to both the opposition of energies within the experience and between the people involved in the experience. Any resistance prevents immediate discharge and accumulates tension that renders energy intense. Thus tension appears from this compressed energy that is seeking release. And when they try to do it, another form tries to block it. This struggle is the cause of tension. Analyze it this way, say in a movie, you are in a state of conservation.. enjoying the experience of the plot, and suddenly there is a gun shot. For a moment, you freeze.... its may be instantaneous, that time may be in milliseconds, but for that instant the hard pounds an extra beat. This creates that struggle within the energies that were already there with the experience you were having.
Then comes the anticipation. As one would guess, this is for the future with the knowledge of the present and the future. This thus occurs in two temporal phases. The first one occurs before the aesthetic experience is taken pace, and the other during the aesthetic experience taking place. Thus there is an expectation build up in this. When that expectation is met, the past is conserved as if the anticipation is molded into the experience itself. When it is not met, the conservation is breached. Often this would also lead to tension and then further lead back to conservation.
Thus, as Dewey says, a rhythmic dance connects aesthetic experience to its history and circumstances. This dance involves a continuous interplay between the past, present and future, each shaping and renewing the others.
We all have a general conception about aesthetics. In common terms, it is something that is appealing, an epitome of beauty, a piece of art, or more broadly something that gives us joy. It is contextual. It deals with balance and co-ordination, it is a consummation or a closure. Aesthetics is a subjective responses to the things we consider beautiful.
Wikipedia defines it as : Aesthetics is commonly perceived as the study of sensory or sensori-emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste. More broadly, scholars in the field define aesthetics as "critical reflection on art, culture and nature."Aesthetics is a subdiscipline of axiology, a branch of philosophy, and is closely associated with the philosophy of art. Aesthetics studies new ways of seeing and of perceiving the world.
So anyone would agree to this. Now we know that there are some things that give us joy and that is not visible. There are somethings in life that makes us smile. Thus, can we classify these things as aesthetic?
Do things that are unpleasing to us not have aesthetics? What about a photograph of a war? Is there a thing called the negative aesthetics? Negative aesthetics are those that evoke negative emotions amongst us. This could be sorrow, pain, disarray, hatred, grimace etc.
Also there is something called the anti-aesthetics. Now this is something that is not aesthetical, but neither negatively aesthetical.
So when we talk about experience, we generally talk about the pleasurable experiences and hence the events are remembered for long. However, a nightmare, is equally reminiscence of the experience. An accident in an event that would have otherwise lead to a pleasant experience. The mind constantly aims to forget these things, but the very sight of any connecting element, reminds one of the bad experiences had.
Happens in movies.. You let out "an experience"s every-time you see them again and again. These incidents happens frequently in life as well. One small incident in childhood leaves a mark that haunts for life.
So when we think about experience, why do we always think of only a positive experience? As experience designers we are constantly trying to design for the positive expressions. Is there a way in which using negative aesthetics, one could build up to a positive aesthetics and in the end result in a positive experience (suspense movies, horror flicks) . Does a roller coaster evoke a negative emotion in course of its travel, and then when one has completed it, the overall feeling is of accomplishment, which is again a positive experience.
How the balance is reached between the two is important. It is imperative for the designer to be able to create the positive experiences in the end. After all who would not like to see more smiles on faces!
Analysing Bruner's Anthropology of Experience. So, which was the last movie that made you go wow! That was an amazing experience! For me it was "Taare Zameen Par", directed by Aamir Khan.
Which was the last photograph that you saw and made you go wow! This is great photograph. This was a series of photographs that I saw from the movie War-Photographer.
When was the last narrative that you read , that made you have a good experience?
Well... i am sure you would agree that the degree of experience is not the same in all of these. Most of the people would say that the movie watching is perhaps the best experience amongst all. I agree to that as well.
So getting a bit more into the anthropology of experience, we try to analyze why this is the case. Why a movie makes me go more wow as compared to a novel? The answer lies in the way we define reality(what is there is there... ), expressions (how individual experience is framed and articulated) and experience (how the reality presents itself to the consciousness). Experience is valuable only if its affecting the inner consciousness and that affect stays with us for long. Expressions or an experiences are short lived and we tend to get over it soon.
We know as discussed, that experience is a collection of a group of expressions or the "an experiences". Anthropologists and ethnographers aim at experiencing the cultures and look at retelling in their words. This often leads us to believing what they say. However, there is a difference in the life lived ( the reality) , the life experienced (the felt) and the life expressed (the told).
Now there are two kinds of experiences. Felt experience and the Told Experience. More often than not, these two fail to match up. This thus, results in the an indifference in the way we interpret the experience and the way the person narrating the experience tells it. As Kapferer puts it, "I do not experience your experience, I experience my experience of you." This means that the actual experience of the thing is lost. There are also some inexperiences that are called the inchoate experiences i.e. the experiences that we are unable to understand. Like many a times we say, I feel good, but don't really know why we are feeling good. These experiences are the ones that are the most often left out in the process of retelling and narration.
Quite often we tend to confuse between the experience and behavior. Experience is more personal, whereas behavior is what some outsider describes. Experience thus is more self referential. Therefore it is concluded that experience is also subjective.
Which brings me to my question! How can we as designers of user experience, create designs that are objective in experience? How can we remove the element of subjectivity and try to look into a common thing amongst mind of users across a demographic, who will experience the design in the same manner in which I as a designer am experiencing?
There have been different ways of conveying experiences. The oldest way was perhaps Narratives. (Rosaldo, Bruner) This was often in the form of speech or written text. Story telling also forms a part of the narrative. However, if an incident has occured to the narrator, there is often a case of over emphasizing a certain chapter / portion in order to enhance the experience while saying it. However, the narrator fails to understand that in the absence of an imagery, there is a picture in the mind of the listener that is constantly changing. Thus, the felt experience of the listener and the told experience of the narrator is not the same.
However if the context has been set, if the images(Fernandez, Kapferer) are used to give a clear indication of the culture in which the enactment had taken place, the listener (user in case of a design) is more likely to develop a better picture of what is being said.
And when this is attached to a movie, where we not only have a cultural context prior set, but also some parameters that help in increasing that experience. There is an enactment (Stewart, Babcock, Schechner) A movie is composed of those numerous expressions or say numerous moments of an experience. A movie makes us go wow, because these expressions are not just a collection, but a proper connected timeline of whats going on. This consummation of experiences over a period of time when presented to us, increases the felt experience thing and hence we get a better experience. In a movie the reflexivity(Gorfain, Boon, Myeroff) factor also plays an important role. Here we couple the frames with our reflection with our own interpretation and hence the experience is enhanced.
As Kapferer puts it, we transcends individual experiences through the participation in the cultural expressions. While watching a movie, we are so deeply engrossed and our mind is full of these expressions, that we forget completely what is outside. This engrossment further enhances the overall experience.
Movies are thus, a field where the art of creating experience has been perfected! It is now completely understandable why I watch so many movies!
Readings from Dewey's Art as an Experience and Bruner's Anthropology of Experience. One of the things that is really important and perhaps necessary for us to understand is the theory behind creating an experience. As interaction designers we are constantly seeking to create designs that are going to give our users (humans) a better user experience. This thus means that everything needs to be joyous. Experience has a aesthetic quality and when we say a good experience, we mean a good aesthetic value to it. There is a difference between the experience and "an experience". When we say an experience, its the significance of an instance of time when we felt that way. Experience however is For example if we say that this lady in this picture: On interacting with a person, when you say a joke, or say give a momentary joy, its called "An experience". Its a function of time. It has a beginning, a maxima and an end. It is very mechanical. Experience on the other hand is a consummation of multiple "an experience"s. Thus when we see a movie we are able to remember of "an experience". These "an experience"s are called expressions. In-order to have an experience its important that there is a satisfying emotional quality because it possesses an internal integration and fulfillment reached through ordered and organized movement.
Being creators of experience we often tend to design taking into consideration our experience. This is highly mistaking as experience is a subjective thing and varies from one person to the other. However, on the other hand we should be trying to design in a manner that the experience of the users will be the same as the felt experience of the designers.
I recently came across this post... And I found it well written and perhaps an answer to why Apple products sell well! A very well written article and worth pondering over.
Excerpts from the article... There’s no need to restate the high reverence (or pangs of envy, depending on where your loyalty lies) of Apple. They have innovated, floundered, and in recent years, risen from the ashes to make one hell of a run in computing and electronics devices. Love them or hate them, you can’t deny that they are adored by their fans. Their brand has reached that highly sought-after place in the world of marketing: they can do no wrong.
So how did they get there? Is it dumb luck? Or are they just much smarter than the rest of us? The most common reason given is Apple’s rabid devotion to design. That is, without a doubt, a key component of Apple’s success. But I think there’s more to it than that. Here are ten reasons why I think Apple is so successful today, and what we can learn from them
. .. Now I love Apple products but not necessarily that I find them the most usable, but they have something more to them than just design. It's a lot to do with the three kinds of design that Don Norman talks in his book Emotional Deisgn, namely the Visceral Design, Behavioral Design and Reflective Design. One interesting example that Norman gives in his book is about the not-so-usable kettle for his morning tea, but still prefer to use it because of its form and other features. The chapter where he discusses these three kinds of design is a must read! I find it so true with the facts that he mentions in the chapter and what is applied at Apple.
Recently I shifted from Windows to Apple. Initially I was pretty uncomfortable with the usage but now it seems set. I guess here it is more of being used to the system and creating a mental model of the softwares that one uses. Over a period of time a design pattern is set on the user's mind. If we go by this argument then all design will be a success over a period of time. But this is not the case.
One of the things that I recently am having trouble in using is the Master lock, that opens with a number combination in a particular order, through a combination of clockwise and anti-clockwise rotation. I have nothing against it but yesterday I spent almost 30 minutes trying to open it and still I find it difficult to use it. This product definitely over a period of time is not going to give me better user experience. However, there are people who open it in seconds! Perhaps I will get used to it someday soon!
This is perhaps one of the important things that we need to know as an Interaction designer. The waves of Human Computer Interaction. This is a precis and some of my understanding from the paper "When second wave HCI meets third wave challenges"by Susanne Bødker . Roughly classified as the 1980s-first wave, 1990s-second wave and the 2000s-third wave and possibly a 4th wave in the 2010s.
So the first wave HCI dealt a lot with rigid guidelines, the testing of the guidelines against the products. There was a strong focus on the user and the user dimensions. Thus the fields like Human Factors and Ergonomics were the guiding forces. There was a notion of uniting everything on the desktop. The notion that the desktop is where all the work takes place and that everything on the desktop needs to be for the person using it. The machine centered notion was in place and almost everything was defined in this context. Things like usability testing and experimental psychology came into the picture where the emphasis was on the ways in which the users were able to complete tasks and what were the cognitive aspects behind performing each task.
The second wave turned out to be more context specific. The context played a huge role in the design of things. This was where the focus shifted from the desktop to the workspace. The office and the places around where the people did all the interactions with the computers. The focus also started to shift towards computers that were not a part of the desktop interactions. The focus was now on "Humans" rather than "Users". The stringent boundaries between the workspace and the non-workspace started being discussed in circles and also emphasis on trying to design for the workspace. These boundaries were later to be broken in the third wave. Here we also see the emergence of the design-as-a-science paradigm. The focus here was on methods too but it was too much rationality oriented. There was a seeking for a proper rationality behind everything that was done. Participatory Design became famous owing to its involving the users in the design process so that the contexts could be well defined.
In the third wave, the current wave, there are a lot of challenges. One of the most important of those is the role of the user, the humans or better to call the Actors. The roles that the humans now play in the design process is more than what it used to be ever. There is an emergence of the design-as-an-art initiative. But on the downside of it, many fear that this may well lead to design becoming too art oriented. Or as is mentioned in the paper, artsy-fartsy. The focus in the third wave seems to revolve around cultures and ethnography. There is a non-rationale approach to design being adopted at times. The domain of looking is now expanded to a wider area that now covers homes, leisure places, homes. The whole aspect of tying emotions to design is really hot and forms a major chunk of the research. interaction design is now no more seen for a single mediator (like the desktop as seen in the 1st wave) but as from multiple mediators. This I believe has a lot to do with the expansion of computers to a wider range of applications. The context is not so well defined in this wave, because it is not sure in what form the user will be interacting with the interface. As a designer, it now becomes imperative to focus on the "lifeworld" and the gamut of our design space is large. Now everything around us revolves around design.
A possibly 4th wave could be coming where the user has completely different says in the whole design space. The whole aspect of the users defining the content like the Facebook, the Flickr, etc could form a major part of what would be termed as the 4th wave.
In the end as a designer, we should all remember and constantly try to answer the question, how is my design going to change people's lives. Is it going to be better? Or worse? Ultimately, we should ask ourselves... will the design bring about a smile to the people who will use it.
One of my interest lately has been designing for the rural population. By rural population I mean the rural population in third world countries like India, and Africa. I believe that there is a whole lot of challenges involved in this and many a times the tried and tested methods and design patterns do not work in these cases. I came across this paper today that deals with designing games for the children in rural India. The paper titled: "Mobile Gaming with Children in Rural India: Contextual Factors in the Use of Game Design Patterns."
This is really interesting as in the paper its discussed that the general design patterns, become not so useful, as the context varies from one culture to the other. Similarly the cognitive understanding of games are completely different for children across cultures.
Using of identified game design patterns for expert game designers, the novice designers and the developers who are not designers is important to know. Many a times the standard design patterns do not work and its nothing short of suicidal to blindly follow them.
One of the things that i seek to find out is the parameters on which the design for games, and entertainment for that matter , are dependent on. This could also mean a design pattern of the rural population. How children interpret symbols, graphics, based on myths, based on society's superstitions...
The whole thing is proposed to be a part of the framework that I call the Rural Interaction Design framework.
Designing for emotions are difficult. It really drains you out. It kind of makes you really emotionless at times. One of the toughest things in a design is to have a proper concept , that is researched upon, and is supported by an argument when one is involving non-tangible things like motivation and feel good, and things like increasing the experience in a design. Measuring these things are too subjective, I feel and a lot has to do with the users personal views.
One of the things that we as designers tend to try doing these days is increase this emotional factor in our designs. There are numerous examples of technology trying to attain that. While I felt hat that there can be no substitute for a human-human interaction, I do hope that Human - Computer Interaction is able to do that to a large extent. This i feel is an attainable goal, owing to the fact the amount of association with technology that we have these days. Pervasive and Ubiquitous computing are these days more used and its hard to ignore technology as we look into replicating these emotions.
These days, there are numerous examples of a wide range of software applications that are being developed by people across and one thing I did come across was the Motivation tool Software.
I often wish that someone came up with a Mind Retention Software , that could track based on the brain waves, the feelings of a person and give proper signals to the person for which it is mapped, so that the person can control himself/herself better.
As a photographer everyone of us has a vision. A style that we at the back of our minds follow and most (not all) of the photographs are actually in that style. The content matter can change from nature to portraits to landscape, but there is definitely a style that one would have developed.
There are different ways of critiquing... and being a designer and a photographer I am at the receiving end many a times! One of the things that we are actually taught here how to give and take critiques. Critiquing is an art in itself, and people have careers out of it.
So Art of giving a critique: 1) Start with a positive thing about the creation. This helps the designer / photographer to have more confidence in their work. There will definitely be something in the artwork that you as a critic like. For example after a presentation the first thing we say is the good things in the design / presentation etc.
2) Then point out one thing that you think is really bugging you and you do not agree to. Explain clearly but be short and sweet.. like KISS. (Keep it short and Simple) If you have two or more comments make it known in the beginning. Like I have three comments to make. This keeps the artist alert to be awake till the end of the comments. Knowing that there is more to come.
3) Have a proper rationale as to why that thing is not appealing to you, and what you think is wrong. Its not OK to just say, I Dont like it. You have to say, I don't like it because xxxxxxxxxxx.
As an artist taking critiques: 1) SMILE throughout the Q/A . (often referred to as the critique section)
2) Appreciate the critics first, and only then put forward your argument, whether you agree or do not agree to that critique given to you. If your thoughts behind an artwork are not being put forward to a critic, go back to that artwork, reference it and state what you are trying to say. Opinions do change once things are made more clear.
In the end, its the artist's call. Picasso did not change his style just because some critiques thought it was crap!
Remember .. critiquing is most of the times THOUGHT TO BE a negative action. But not always is... I have attended presentations where the condition was that you are not allowed to make a negative comment! thats interesting.. isn't it!
I come from a remote area in Rural India. The first internet connection came there just last year. In all there are just five houses that have internet in the whole town. Mine happens to be one of them. Now that I am here, I had tried to teaching the basic usage of computers to my parents, so that they could be in touch with me over emails! This was seen as a “strategy” to save some cash over the phone. (Its a different thing that we talk on phone more and the phone bills have not really stopped) I remember trying to teach my parents about the internet, and how it could help them find “ANY” information that they wan, thanks to Google, (which they confused for goggles! :P).
I thus was happy that I had made my parents “Computer Literate” which happens to be more important these days than the normal literacy programs run by the governments back home.
One day, my mom called and said .. Son , we want to see you! and how you look? and if you are well, whether you have put on weight thanks to American cheese.. or lost weight… thanks to the demanding graduate School! Also, “email” us a recent photograph of yours.
So one fine day i said.. ok.. i will teach how to use SKYPE so that they could see their darling son! I tried for almost 30 minutes to explain them… And yes. u guessed it.. I failed. I could not teach my parents, both of who are doctors, how to use a simple program. This was also because of the fact that we both are on different platforms, XP vs Tiger.
The point is ..does the standard methods of teaching hold good in imparting computer literacy? Do the rules change? What kind of basics are stressed upon here?
I also happen to have a strong interest in rural education and whenever i am home, i spend hours with children from local school, answering their questions, watching them smile, hearing them shout.
One question that a child had heard a new word somewhere and had asked me was “What is a computer?”. I was dumb. I had no answer in which I could explain that to that kid. I tried… The kid believed me.. But I think i had failed.
I have often come across this question by many ... How does being a photographer help in becoming a designer or how does photography relate to the design activities that i do? I have believed that both are related in some way or the other and that the theory of one does hold good for the other too. The principles of symmetry, balance, harmony and contrast are applicable fully to design as equally as in photography. I believe in keeping things simple and like to see my photographs and design follow the principle of Simplicity. I feel that each element in my frame are equally responsible for the overall impact of the photograph/design and that they all are coherently involved in creating what one would call a better User Experience.
I recently came across this article where many designers across the world have their say on this very question. Some excerpts: "I like to think of design as my bread and butter while photography is the chocolate pudding." -Steph Goralnick, graphic designer.
"What you don't show is even more important than what you do. The mind is fertile territory and it must be left free to imagine and fill in the blanks."-Eric G, architect/interior designer.
How i wish we could all do it... Selective coloring. Remove the colors of sorrow in life and fill it only with those colors that give us joy and unending happiness. I do remember while interacting with a senior person that Life itself is a Photoshop document. You keep making the actions and the canvas is filled with the events. The only difference is that in Life you do not have the option of Undo (CTRL+Z). One would argue what are the colors that one can associate happiness with? Whats a color of happiness in one culture may not be in another. As a designer do we need to be sensitive to such things? Many people say that India is a land of color ! and that its a photographer's paradise. But still we associate the black and white medium to sadness and mourning... The conception generally is that Joy is present only when there is color. This may be true in most of the cases not all though!
Doing this Selective coloring is really simple. 1) Open the image on Photoshop. This is the 'Background Layer' in the opened document. 2) Copy the image layer onto another layer (this is the "Background Copy layer") so that both the layers are coinciding, and the images are just one below the other. 3) Convert this copy layer into Black and white. Using Image> Adjustment > Gradient Map. ( make sure that the image pallete in the menu toolbar has the colors Black in foreground and White in background. 4) Select the eraser tool and erase those parts of the image which you want in color from the Copied layer. Since the image on the lower layer still has the colored image, the desired effect is easily attained.
I just truly wish that i could do this with Life also! Enjoy!
Its been over a year since i started shooting on Indian Streets. The gamut of subjects that i come across makes it all the more interesting... and thus trying out indoor photography has taken a backseat. I am a big fan of Nature and hence I shoot almost 99% of my shots with Natural light. I am overwhelmed when people ask me how do i go about shooting on the Indian streets! I can speak only Hindi and English and hence its not really possible for me to speak to the local people on the streets who speak a different language altogether. This is also important keeping in mind that I interact with people from different states and different cultures almost every month.
I go in groups but then the group does not shoot together. We reach a common place in the market and then branch off; each one shooting what they like shooting. I like shooting portraits and hence one would have seen it in my photo stream. http://www.flickr.com/photos/happyhorizons
However taking that is not easy, as i said i don't speak their language. So if i approach a vendor, and just shoot, they may get offended. So what I do is first I try and adjust to the situation. Will go there and even without thinking of shooting my main subject, I will shoot around 4-5 snaps of his/her surroundings. It could be flowers, vegetables or just the street ans as abstract as shooting pillars... By this time the curiosity in my main subject has arisen and they are ready to get shot. But I still will not take "the" picture that i am thinking of or have in mind. I will then show them the photographs that I have just taken and then will probably point the camera to them. If they agree then they will get alert and their shots don't look candid. Thus I will shoot them and show them that posed photo of them and pretending to go... while on my way out when their attention is not on me.. but the joy that they have received on seeing photographs on the camera, I will then shoot the photograph that I had pictured in my mind. It takes time and patience, but 8 out of 10 time i would come back really satisfied! I just follow the instinct and speak the universal language of smile!
IIT Alumnus, Indiana University Alumnus.
Designer/Photographer. Presently working as Program Director and Head of Operations (India) with Lecole de Design Nantes Atlantique.
Often a freelance User Experience Design and Research Consultant, a freelance Photographer, an ardent traveler and documentary film maker.
I mainly click people, portraits and nature.
As a visiting faculty, I teach Photography and Design at a few colleges in India and conduct workshops at different places.
www.kshitizanand.com
