Dear Kevin, Ricardo, Nick and Brooke, I think we are okay to talk about this stuff online. I'm hoping those in Administrative posts will use our think tank as a way to enlighten themselves about other alternatives. For me option 4 is mighty tempting but structurally within many Visual Arts departments seems impossible. Anyone else have any great ideas? Renate
> Glad to see the HCI discussion come up here, and in the context of > questions about Design in education. Perhaps I'm just pessimistic, but > I don't think we have long before today's "New Media" programs are > squeezed out of fine arts curricula by HCI and its cousins in > Industrial Design and Graphic Design. HCI is hard to distinguish for > many an upper-level administrator from the Digital Media / New Media > programs born in the last ten years. The confusion is understandable > from a distance, as HCI borrows increasingly from New Media and > Computer Arts for methods, media, and even critical language - all to > the consumerist ends outlined by Nick. > > It's easy for students to distinguish between the two, however, given > the easy product tie-ins of HCI and other design education. Much > current design education is, as Nick implies, essentially an exercise > in meta-shopping. (Who's a better shopper than the one who hangs > around the factory line?) I fully expect that the sort of hires that > resulted in our current, even mildly-critical digital arts programs > will not come again, except perhaps for in the most elite and high- > price-tag programs of the world. > > So what are we to do, if we care about exercising a role as educators > and researchers beyond the provision of politicized recess for > students who won't need to work for a living after school? > > 1 - Make hay (or raise Cain?) while the sun shines - this seems to be > the bang.lab approach, as far as I can tell ( I can't imagine that > Calit2 will support these projects for long-term? If so, then great!) > T.A.Z., tactics over strategies, all that temporary stuff is always > possible, and maybe the only way. (I also think here of Wodizcko, > trained as an Industrial Designer, but taking Papandek's ideas and > moving right out of that field in the 60s/70s.) > > 2 - Prepare for the inevitable change in our institutional waters, by > acquainting ourselves with the methods of our future partners/bosses/ > overlords, making ready to live in their world as critical members who > ask tough, informed questions. > > 3 - Identify our current work as "preservable," something to be > protected in the name of knowledge, like the older arts of traditional > glass and ceramics. > > 4 - Depart from the arts and sciences altogether, to identify > ourselves with media studies in the humanities. (Christiane, can you > speak to this option?) Bank on the whole "practice-based research" > trend, keeping a wary eye on the Social Sciences as possible, > occasional, collaborator. > > I'm trying a little bit of all these things myself, with increasing > hope for option #4. In addition to skepticism about the consumerist > ends of design and arts education, I'm also looking to steer clear of > the technocratic, ahistorical progress machine of modern science > (sustainability as economic catalyst). > > Any thoughts? Maybe a public listserv isn't the safest place to have > this conversation? > > Kevin Hamilton > > > > On Nov 20, 2009, at 2:38 PM, nicholas knouf wrote: > >> Brooke, Ricardo, and everyone, >> >> Thanks for your interesting points regarding notions of design, >> designing, and designers. This has also been on my mind recently, >> especially as a result of my position within a traditional >> human-computer interaction program. Here there is no questioning the >> role of the designer: the designer is to be subservient to the "needs" >> of the "user", where the user is defined as that constructed by >> corporations and the market. Researchers actively seek out >> relationships with corporate sponsors and corporate research labs. >> As a >> result, there is no discussion regarding broader societal issues, >> excepting where they intersect with present corporate priorities, as >> in >> the rhetoric of "sustainability"---and of course there the limits of >> the >> conversation are already set, again by the market. >> >> This situation caused me to write a polemical paper for the main >> conference in HCI, ACM SIGCHI, called "HCI for the Real World" >> (http://zeitkunst.org/publications/hci-real-world). In it, and this >> is >> the main point of my post, I draw heavily on on the work of Victor >> Papanek, an industrial designer who wrote, for me, a very influential >> book originally published in 1970 entitled _Design for the Real >> World_. >> He focuses on the role of the designer, not only in the composition of >> the products made, but prior to that, in the very selection of >> projects >> to work on: >> >> "...I must agree that the designer bears a responsibility for the way >> the products he designs are received at the market place. But this is >> still a narrow and parochial view. The designers responsibility >> must go >> far beyond these considerations. His social and moral judgment must be >> brought into place long before he begins to design, since he has to >> make >> a judgment, and a prior judgment at that, as to whether the products >> he >> is asked to design or redesign merit his attention at all. In other >> words, will his design be on the side of the social good or not" (66). >> >> This is one of the key, but unasked, questions within HCI. There is a >> general agreement on the relationship of HCI to corporations, the >> market, and "users", yet there is no questioning of the very >> assumptions >> that underlie that agreement, and thus what are the important problems >> that students and faculty spend their time on. Of course there are >> complicated interrelationships here between funding agencies, >> professional societies, methods of reward, the system of publication >> (in >> HCI, emphasis on yearly conference papers versus less-frequent, but >> more >> in-depth, journal articles or monographs), and so on. Yet these are >> the >> very conditions that should be at the forefront of debate, >> especially in >> a "discipline" that is relatively young like HCI---but they are not. >> >> Returning to someone like Papanek, writing a similar polemic for >> industrial design and at the height of an earlier "ecological" >> movement, >> is key to foreground the continuities between different aspects of >> design, different time periods...and to suggest transdisciplinary >> connections. Design can be more than ICT for development, more than >> "sustainable consumerism", but only if designers take responsibility >> for >> their choices of what to research and what to design (and where they >> can >> have a decent amount of control over that choice, such as in the >> academy), and if they instill in their students a similar ethic. >> Designers in academia would have to push against the notion that they >> have to teach their students "marketable skills". (And, I would >> argue, >> that if the designers really wanted to teach skills that would improve >> the "bottom line" of companies they would allow for much more creative >> activity on the part of their student-designers, but that is the topic >> for a longer post on the interrelationship of interrelationship of >> contemporary "cognitive capitalism" and modern technological >> development.) Undertaking projects such as Brooke's "hactivating >> design" and "undesigning" and Ricardo's "garageScience" opens up >> spaces >> to address these questions and suggest possible alternatives. >> >> Nevertheless, I want to additionally point to the ways in which >> Papanek's project is an explicit critique and condemnation of >> contemporary (both then and now) processes of consumerist capitalism. >> Thus this approach is not to encourage design to necessarily create >> new, >> more "hackable" "products", but rather to question the very system of >> consumption and the manufacture of desire that creates a system of >> "products". This is the potentially radical implications of following >> in the wake of Papanek: of using design not to create a "more just" >> capitalism, but rather to create the conditions of possibility of real >> alternatives through an engagement and reconfiguration of our material >> world, of understanding how design methodology can construct different >> ontological realities (following the work of someone like John Law in >> _After Method_) with different political implications. >> >> nick >> >> >> Ricardo Dominguez wrote: >>> Hola all and Brooke, >>> >>> I really enjoyed "undesigning" poster Brooke and it would be really >>> great >>> to slip into classrooms from pre-k to post-grad spaces. (I will >>> work on >>> that.) >>> >>> I do think that the tactical re-engineering is an important gesture >>> and >>> one that has been important in my thinking since I first encountered >>> the community research initiatives that ACT UP/SF - Golden Gate >>> established >>> in late 80's as a response to the viral politics of therapeutic >>> state at >>> the time. >>> And by creating a "hactivating design" gesture of smashing popular >>> toothpaste with the politics of the question that can become viral >>> - which >>> at the core of its performative matrix is that anyone can do it. >>> Now that >>> I have a young son everything becomes amplified in terms of >>> toxicities at >>> all levels. We are encountering particle capitalism(s) clouds at >>> every >>> scale of being. Which, is an important theme for the *particle >>> group* as >>> well (http://pitmm.net). >>> >>> As, part of video mediation on Open Fabrication systems, the >>> attempted to >>> bring together EDT/*particle group* and the other gestures that >>> criss-crossed each other under the sign of science of the oppressed >>> (which I came to understand came from Monique Wittig really >>> fantastico) >>> - here is a section of the text that I thought might fall into the >>> sphere >>> of hactivating design: >>> >>> [science of the oppressed and garageScience] >>> >>> We can imagine Augusto Boals Theatre of the Oppressed, Chela >>> Sandovals >>> Methodology of the Oppressed, Critical Art Ensembles tactical >>> science, >>> Natalie Jeremijenko public experiments and what the Electronic >>> Disturbance >>> Theater has framed today as the science of the oppressed each >>> of these >>> parts of a wide area call for a re-framed relationalilty between >>> spectator, poesis, praxis, experimentation and Sandovals >>> differential >>> consciousness of the la conciencia de la metiza. Each gesture >>> diagrams >>> alternative social forms of life and art that fall between the >>> known and >>> unknown, between fiction and the real, between clean science and >>> dirty >>> science each a part of a long history of an epistemology of social >>> production which privileges the standpoint of the proletariat, the >>> multitude, the open hacks of the DIY moments, and of autonomous >>> investigators who stage test zones of cognitive styles-as/and out >>> of >>> concrete practices as speculation and speculation as concrete >>> practices >>> at the speed of dreams. >>> >>> What the artivist adds to this circuit is the ability to stage >>> potential >>> rehearsals for the now-and-future community laboratories, for the >>> nanoGarages to come, for the current empirical speculations of new >>> ecologies of social formations that can create a space for the >>> agency of >>> actor-spectators that can route around the neoliberal walls of >>> venture >>> science as only protocol for scientific research and instead >>> offer a >>> counter-frame/unframe of a science for and by the people. As Boal >>> stated, >>> we must move towards a rehearsal-theater and away from a >>> spectacle-theater. The science of the oppressed for EDT is type of >>> rehearsal-lab that imagines community laboratories blooming from >>> the >>> always/already lowrider robotics of East L.A., from the Zapatista >>> Open >>> Seed an assemblage Open Wetware lab(s) each garage a rehearsal- >>> lab >>> for new agency(s) defined by the people/the citizen/the nomad to >>> resume >>> their protgonistic function between/within/without art and science. >>> >>> The whole video is here: >>> >>> http://medialab-prado.es/article/nanogarajes_especulaciones_sobre_fabbing_abierto >>> >>> Also, some other thoughts on these themes by *particle group*'s >>> Nanosférica presentation: >>> http://hemisphericinstitute.org/hemi/en/particle-group-intro >>> >>> nano nano, >>> Ricardo >>> >>> >>>> These are some of the specifics I am dealing with, but I am >>>> interested in >>>> this general premise: if design is about intention and if we want to >>>> create >>>> change through design then we have to design with a broader set of >>>> objectives in mind. Reverse engineering our everyday products is a >>>> good >>>> starting point. And when I rebuild with broader objectives as I >>>> define >>>> them, >>>> financial considerations are part of the equation but not top of >>>> the list >>>> or >>>> the lead imperative as with mega-corporations that are designing >>>> popular >>>> toothpastes. >>>> >>>> I came across this paper a few weeks back by Scott Burnham called >>>> "Finding >>>> the Truth in Systems: In Praise of Design Hacking" that is quite >>>> relevant >>>> to >>>> this discussion (http://scottburnham.com/?p=521). >>>> >>>> A brief sample from that paper: >>>> >>>> * Hacking creates new engagements between the product and the >>>> consumer >>>> * Hacking mandates relevance and necessity in design >>>> * Hacking is resourceful >>>> * Hacking creates abundance from limited resources >>>> * Hacking finds the truth in systems >>>> >>>> And, I leave you with a short essay of mine (this is actually text >>>> from a >>>> poster you can download here: http://undesigning.org/cmos.html) >>>> for those >>>> who want to read more. >>>> >>>> Best, Brooke >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Our Chemically Modified Organisms (CMOs) >>>> >>>> >>>> Industrial chemistry is a 20th century phenomenon. During World >>>> War I, >>>> military demand for war gas was a great boon for the burgeoning >>>> industry. >>>> But, in 1925, with the signing of the Geneva Protocol that banned >>>> chemical >>>> warfare, industry had to look for other markets. The production of >>>> nerve >>>> gas >>>> (a phosphorous-containing chemical) gave way to a new line of >>>> insecticides >>>> and the chlorine used in weapons such as phosgene and mustard gas >>>> became >>>> feedstock for newly designed solvents, PCBs and, eventually, >>>> plastics. >>>> >>>> The chemical industry really took off after World War II. In the >>>> United >>>> States, synthetic organic chemical production has grown more than >>>> thirty-fold since 1940. Today industry produces billions of tons of >>>> chemicals per year of approximately 90,000 substances. These man- >>>> made >>>> chemicals are the foundation of our built environment. They form our >>>> plastics, cosmetics, household cleaners, pharmaceuticals, resins, >>>> pesticides, food packaging, paper, clothing, flame-retardants, >>>> electronics, >>>> solvents, paint, automobile parts, mattresses, lumber, pigments, >>>> refrigeration, detergents, PVC, silicone, dry cleaning, >>>> disinfectants, >>>> lubricants the list is truly endless. >>>> >>>> Many of these chemicals and the byproducts produced during their >>>> life >>>> cycle >>>> are stable and persist in the environment. These chemicals also >>>> bio-accumulate, meaning they increase in concentration as they >>>> move up the >>>> food chain. Chemicals can travel great distances on currents of >>>> wind and >>>> water, making remote regions like the Arctic just as susceptible to >>>> degradation. >>>> >>>> New research demonstrates that some of these pollutants, even at >>>> very low >>>> doses, can cause serious health problems. Previously it was >>>> thought that >>>> decreasing the concentration of a substance would mitigate its >>>> impact. >>>> Dilution is no longer seen as the pollution solution. Timing of >>>> exposure >>>> is >>>> crucial and sensitivity is particularly high when exposure occurs >>>> in utero >>>> or early development. >>>> >>>> For many years, cancer was the primary health concern. Today, >>>> laboratory >>>> studies and wildlife observations demonstrate that chemical >>>> dangers are >>>> extensive. Chemical exposures disrupt endocrine, reproductive, >>>> immune and >>>> nervous systems as well as contribute to cancer and other diseases. >>>> >>>> In its first scientific statement published in 2009, The Endrocrine >>>> Society >>>> -- an international body with 14,000 members founded in 1916 -- >>>> stated: >>>> "Results from animal models, human clinical observations, and >>>> epidemiological studies converge to implicate EDCs [endocrine- >>>> disrupting >>>> chemicals] as a significant concern to public health." >>>> >>>> The United States government does not require manufacturers to >>>> prove a >>>> chemical is safe before use and companies generally do not >>>> voluntarily do >>>> so. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has only required >>>> testing >>>> for some 200 of the 90,000 chemicals already in circulation. In >>>> response, >>>> many groups and concerned citizens are promoting the precautionary >>>> principle, which states that the manufacture of certain products >>>> should >>>> cease even when there are only hypothetical and untested risks. This >>>> places >>>> the burden of proof on the industry to show that a substance is safe >>>> rather >>>> than on society to demonstrate there is a specific risk. >>>> >>>> Some scientists are creating new frameworks, citing the failure of >>>> the >>>> scientific method alone to sufficiently protect human health and >>>> ecological >>>> effects. Funtowicz and Ravetz, for example, have introduced >>>> postnormal >>>> science, which is useful when facts are uncertain, the stakes are >>>> high and >>>> decisions are urgent. These scientists encourage dialogue and >>>> participation >>>> with a full range of stakeholders since scientific objectivity >>>> cannot >>>> provide all that is needed for decision-making on high, risk issues. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> empyre forum >>>> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au >>>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre >>>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> empyre forum >> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au >> http://www.subtle.net/empyre > > _______________________________________________ > empyre forum > empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au > http://www.subtle.net/empyre > Renate Ferro Visiting Assistant Professor Department of Art Cornell University, Tjaden Hall Ithaca, NY 14853 Email: <r...@cornell.edu> Website: http://www.renateferro.net Co-moderator of _empyre soft skinned space http://www.subtle.net/empyre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empyre Art Editor, diacritics http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/dia/ _______________________________________________ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
