Posted on April 14th, 2007 by Tobin Stewart.
Categories: Tobin • Reading Reviews.
Lovejoy, Art as Interactive Communications: Networking Global Culture (from Art in the Electronic Age), 2004
Lovejoy’s thesis for this chapter is delivered poignantly in its first paragraph: major changes in communications systems foster enormous shifts in societal connectivity.
She begins dissecting her argument in reference to ideas laid out in the 1930s in Walter Benjamin’s The Author as Producer, in which he suggests a transformation in the main function of artworks toward an emphasis on social function – Benjamin would propose the idea of spectator as collaborator. He would urge artists to challenge the system and transform it, as opposed to simply supplying it. Shying away from being overtly idealistic, he was also aware of the potential that technologies possess in regard to their ability to end up controlling us, and would stress among his ideas the possible dangers if artists were to create without fully understanding their role in the use of new technologies. As art now begins to be distributed on the Internet, Lovejoy continues along Benjamin’s train of thought, asking us: can we control it?
Lovejoy claims that the participatory aspect of the Internet supplies the grounds for a communications revolution – a new kind of dialogic public space that holds great promise, though she does not shy away from admitting of the great challenges it simultaneously presents. As its form lacks fixed entry points and narratives, Lovejoy understands how content and context, terms that have previously been so strictly defined (particularly in regard to the exhibition of artworks), have become entirely interchangeable characteristics. As the interplay between form and dialogue has come to forge new unpredictability to the aesthetic territory in which artworks lie, what occurs is the allowance of dialogic imagination, where the work begins to pertain to an arena of consciousness and feeling that did not previously exist – shared authorship and social exchange.
As metaphors for networks or webs have come to be defined as the infrastructure in which telematic communication occurs, Lovejoy draws attention its non-confined, open-endedness, where previous conceptual systems based upon ideas of center, margin, hierarchy, and linearity are replaced. She cites Roland Barthes’ From Work to Text, which suggests that “…knowledge no longer exists in fixed canons or texts with epistemological boundaries between disciplines but rather it exists as paths of inquiry seeking integration and meaning by passing through them without any precise limit or location…” She continues by referencing Deleuze and Guattari’s A Thousand Plateaus, in which they further Barthes’ claims, leaning toward an orientation for knowledge based upon the desire of chartering unforeseen directions. Their ideas cater to those “…who have a certain taste for the unknown, for what is not already determined by history or society…” She goes on to reference the work of Kit Galloway and Sherrie Rabinowitz (exploiting the phenomenon of the power of communication technologies to be able to mix spaces or exchange spaces), making clear their goal of being able to “…experience new ways of collaboration and co-creation, with geography no longer a boundary…”
Lovejoy goes on to describe the potential that creative networking can possess to build links between communities previously unable to communicate with each other – to generate “…a more participatory culture in order to engage and stimulate the collective imagination…” She makes note of the fact that interactive new media artworks travel with the viewer, providing greater potential for the creation of meaning. The Internet, thus, becomes a form of collective social consciousness.
Though Lovejoy is certain that the Internet embodies a certain promise of democracy (ideally being available to anyone, anytime, anywhere), she is also aware of the issues it poses seeing as though it is inextricably linked to commercial and corporate influence – access is also a matter of filtration. In regard to such issues, she poses some very interesting questions: Will there be cultural dominance and language dominance by those who have greater access to technology? Will selected access to powerful technologies create elitism? She suggests that it is the public’s responsibility to establish acceptable uses of the new technologies. Otherwise, she claims, powerful monopolies will continue to determine what is fed into the cultural mainstream.
Lovejoy’s concluding thoughts return to Benjamin’s thesis: artists are vital to the development of the process of cultural response to the new technologies. She finishes with a quote from Stephen Willats’ Art and Social Function:
“…the realization that all ‘art’ is dependent on society – dependant on relationships between people and not the sole product of any one person – is becoming increasingly important in the shaping of future culture…”
Johnson, See What Happens (from Emergence), 2001
Johnson speculates on they type of data the networks of the future will be transmitting. Specifically, he references the development of Will Wright’s latest creation, The Sims Online, a game that allows players to collectively build cities as part of a massive network collaboration. Every single citizen of these virtual worlds will be controlled by actual human beings, logged into the system from all around the world.
An early draft of the of the game displayed a neighborhood-creation system that seemed to Johnson to be straight out of the pages of Jane Jacobs – defined from the bottom up, and encouraging shorter blocks, livelier sidewalks, mixed-used zoning, and pedestrian-based transportation.
Contrary to popular speculation, Johnson does not see our newfound access to virtual cities on the computer screen abating our appetite for real-world city living. Rather than delivering the deathblow to city living (finishing a forty-year process that had begun with the suburban flight of the postwar years), Johnson claims the digital revolution to have turned out to be a tremendous energizer for dense urban centers. He understands that industries driven by ideas naturally gravitate toward physical centers of idea generation, that bright minds with shared interests still flock together, even when they have wireless modems and broadband in their living rooms. He suggests that even in an age of instant data transmissions, that the old-style self-organizing city is today as vital and relevant as it has ever been.
Rowland, The Need to Communicate (from Spirit of the Web), 1999
Rowland begins with a history of the Greek alphabet – it was not invented until about 730 B.C. He notes that through archeological evidence, it appeared rather suddenly, and was used from the beginning for what we now refer to as ‘literary purposes’ rather than for accounting, list keeping and other trade and business functions.
He discusses how until the coming of Greek writing, literacy was entirely elitist, and that as a communications technology, its failure to penetrate beyond the ranks of the professional would severely limit its impact on society at large. Rowland compares the situation to the nascent days of personal computer communications, when only the highly skilled ‘computer whiz’ had the means and capacity to make use of the technology.
Rowland suggests that as the Greek alphabet disintermediated the notion of literacy, it would simultaneously provide for profound and unpredictable effects upon the civilization that would be forced to embrace it. He claims that the alphabet would make possible the evolution of the detached intellectual state that makes possible the ability to philosophize and think abstractly – a shift that would make way for rational inquiry, inevitably leading to the scientific method.
Rowland understands that communications media are not neutral, but that they rather ‘colour’ or ‘shade’ the information they carry to greater or lesser degrees. He states that they possess the inherent potential to shape the very consciousness of their users by their emphasis on a single sense or set of senses, to the outright exclusion of others.
Davis, Crossed Wires (from TechGnosis), 2004
Davis suggests that by their very nature, information and communication technologies (or ‘media’) are technocultural hybrids. He argues that on one hand, they pertain to crafted, material mechanisms that are conceived, constructed, and exploited for gain, though, he continues, they are also animated by something that has nothing to do with matter or technique. Davis feels that information technology, more than any other invention, transcends its status as a thing, simply due to its allowance for the incorporeal encoding and transmission of mind and meaning.
He feels that, in a sense, this hybridity reflects the age-old sibling rivalry between form and content . He states that the “…material and technical structure of media impose formal constraints on communication, even as the immediacy of communication continues to challenge formal limitations as it crackles from mind to mind, pushing the envelope of intelligence, art, and information flow…”
Rowland also suggests that the new interfaces that have come to emerge between the self, the other, and the world beyond has forced media technologies to have no choice but to become part of this self, this other, and this new world. They have come to form the foundation for what we now increasingly refer to as the ‘social construction of reality.’ He continues, claiming that by submitting ourselves to the robot of science, technology, and media culture, we will continually cut ourselves off from the richness of the soul and from the deeply nourishing networks of family, community, and the local hand.
Word Count: 1544
Posted on October 1st, 2006 by Tobin Stewart.
Categories: Tobin • Reading Reviews.
Mau & Leonard, Now That We Can Do Anything, 2004
The article begins with an extremely poignant quote, taken from Toynbee’s A Study of History, which suggests that the twentieth century will be mainly remembered for its assumption that the undertaking of the welfare of the entire planet could be a feasible objective. It continues to dissect Toynbee’s thesis, that the cycle of rise and decline among civilizations is not an inevitable one, and that our ability to live up to challenges presented by our world is what determines our well being. Mau and Leonard contend that in today’s world, as innovation itself has begun to generate profound challenges in both the human and environmental realms, we may still find hope in the opportunities currently being fostered along the edges of culture and technology. Their project, Massive Change, is an attempt to chart the terrain currently attempting to cultivate a new, optimistic view of the future.
They state that design has evolved from a position of or relative insignificance to become the biggest project in the world today. They acknowledge that every aspect of human life has fallen into the hands of design, and that it is necessary for the responsibilities emerging from this power to encourage widespread concern and involvement. Their development of a research strategy that approaches design as an integrated system of movement economies, as opposed to relying on the traditions inherent to mere product or graphic designs, allows for a process of interconnected thinking across disciplines to take place. Design, then, becomes distributed, plural and collaborative; the global commons become an integral role in the process of design. This becomes an area of great concern, as we must accept the consequences of our own imaginations. As well, Mau and Leonard state that as this ‘future’ of global design is a fundamentally collaborative one, ubiquitous involvement is necessary and censorship must be forbidden. Massive Change may be regarded as utopian and futuristic at first glance, but Mau and Leonard stress that it is already happening, and that it is by no means too late to become a part of it.
This article, as well as the Massive Change exhibit itself (AGO, 2005), would be extremely inspiring to me in the empowerment it has allowed me to feel in the way I can ‘design’ my own existence to hopefully contribute to the greater good of the planet. My friends (and collaborative work force) and I would even develop a project proposal centered on harnessing wasted energy using materials and strategies that already exist, that would no doubt be inspired by the ideas presented by Mau and Leonard.
Lunenfeld, The Design Cluster, 2003
Peter Lunenfeld claims that we all live in the Design Cluster - a vast space in which the diversity of inputs and outputs to contemporary design are seemingly limitless. He believes that the notion of design as a problem-solving discipline, as defined in the 1970s, has morphed into more recent notions such as design as the cultural appropriation of technology, with the explosion of ‘personal’ designs that would emerge in the 1980s and 90s. He describes a new form called ‘design research,’ defining it as a place where theory and practice are fused, and where the aim is to ‘find out’ rather than simply regurgitate what has already been found. Design research moves away from ‘mere styling’ to contributing to the manifestation of every aspect of a product. The most recent attempts to define design research separate it into three categories/stages: the historical and aesthetic studies of art and design (research into design), project-based/material research and development (research through design) and finally creating objects and systems to hopefully prove the worth of the research (research for design).
Lunenfeld goes on to suggest that the impact of the more recent digital technologies on design require even newer categories or stages of design to be considered. He also states that the democratization of computer technology has brought about a much denser population among the design cluster, and that it is important for these new ‘designers’ to be educated in the ways of past generations who had to forge innovation without the opportunities provided by these new, convenient tools. Connecting the dots of historical practice allows for history, theory and criticism to become completely practical even in non-academic situations. He continues, advocating that it is also important to think of design as research – to use the very media of the design itself to perform further investigation. He believes that very often it is a particular context or moment in time that allows design research to actually resonate with the product’s market, rather than to be forgotten or ignored.
Design research can be described as a branch of ‘applied’ research, rather than one of ‘pure’ research. As information has become so interconnected and far-reaching, what to research has become a research issue of its own. Design does not have to be limited to the serving of business, but should be thought of as a means to improve every aspect of the world (including human life). It is not merely about theory and practice, but also about purpose. Citizens must become accustomed to ‘uploading’ as well as ‘downloading.’
I enjoyed this article for its insight into how vital the notion of design really is in regard to every single step in the development of things. It has made me realize how important it is to consider the overall context of every single element whatever it is being developed, and to ‘design’ each element accordingly. It is amazing to think about the possibilities one could uncover when every stage of production is so meticulously thought out.
Canaan, Research to Fuel the Creative Process, 2003
In this article, Canaan argues that computers have revolutionized the design industry in a way that has rendered designers unable to rely strictly on creative capabilities as the sole means to a successful career. They must now make an effort to understand the implications of creativity on business at every level. Design firms are beginning to shift from mere ‘studios’ to full on ‘consultancies.’ Designers must now be able to understand how a product will influence a consumer’s behaviour, requiring a sufficient amount of design ‘research.’ Canaan believes that individual reactions (as opposed to group opinion gathering) are the most beneficial in comparing the specific behavioural characteristics of a product.
Canaan understands that the notion of ‘creativity’ is enormously misunderstood. Contrary to the popular belief of it being a mystical talent that one will randomly inherent at birth, he suggests that tapping into creative resources is a process that can be learned by anyone through adequate research into how these creative traits can be supported. He admits that to most, this seems like a daunting task, as we all fall victim to lifelong training that discourages the use of creative abilities. He defines creativity simply as an attitude – a willingness to make new associations from unrelated elements. He stresses that relating one’s subconscious memories to a given problem in order to develop new and unique input strategies is what fosters creative thinking. Thus, he contends that everyone is given equal opportunity to develop creative ideas, as we all begin with an entirely unique set of personal life experiences to draw from. As it is difficult for many to access their subconscious on demand, Canaan suggests that anxiety provides a consistent means to stimulate creative thinking. This explains the unconventional, unruly and unpredictable work habits commonly seen among ‘creatives’ that is casually tolerated by the ‘suits.’ He also believes that creative cultures may only flourish once the support of ‘failure’ ideas are as openly accepted as successes. He claims that the best creative outcomes will derive when a broad range of ideas are explored, not just the ‘right’ one. Canaan’s final piece of advice is that it is important for a team of creative thinkers to be given adequate time away from a project (requiring additional patience and confidence from their ‘superiors’) so that additional reflection may allow for the development of ‘breakthrough ideas.’
This article should be of inspiration to anyone interested in following creative pursuits. It offers many strategies, as well as a level confidence, that will no doubt help in fueling the creative process among any working group. It has definitely affected the way I approach group discussions, as well as the way I react to idea input in general.
Grocott, Speculation, Serendipity and Studio Anybody, 2003
The article begins with Grocott admitting to have developed immense professional dissatisfaction after having learned that the commercial design profession was only fractionally about designing (creative speculation, contemplation and refinement to achieve truly innovative solutions) and more about formulaic, simplistic inventions. She does not accept the rationale that positions academic speculation in opposition to professional application. She and five equal partners would develop Studio Anybody, a design consultancy that focuses on research through design as a method to foster innovation while maintaining exciting work strategies. The aim would be to accommodate discovery-led research processes to ‘naturalize’ the gap between speculative research and commercial activity. They insist to not rely on formally approved decisions, and to not limit a design to something familiar and that is assured to work, while still listening to and considering a client’s comments. The main obstacle would be to learn to sustain the designer’s creativity while engaging the client’s audience.
I found this article extremely interesting in its drive to renegotiate the relationship between designer and client. It is obvious that in order for interesting designs to continue to be created, more interesting design practices need to be initiated. It is also necessary for mutual respect and trust to exist between designers and clients to ensure that clients are aware and in approval of the decisions being made, while simultaneously providing the designer with the freedom to take whatever steps and whatever time is necessary to realize the full potential of their creations.
I find this article particularly inspiring as it gives me the confidence to assume that the freedom I have enjoyed in creating design solutions for school projects will hopefully extend to and be encouraged within my professional career.
Nissani, Ten Cheers for Interdisciplinarity, 1997
Nissani claims that the nineteenth century would see the notion of intellectual and artistic ‘specialization’ replacing the idea of the Renaissance Scholar. Some assert this to be the result of a long process of division between intellectuals and physical scientists that has slowly overwhelmed the West and has even transformed into multitude of cultures, with each one resisting any form of permeation from another. Others have suggested that to prevent specialization ‘narrow-mindedness,’ we need to reconceptualize the very notion of specialization to accommodate for links among numerous specializations to be explored as opposed to dismissed. Nissani accepts that specialization is here to stay, but suggests that new forms of interdisciplinarity are continually becoming possible and should be encouraged. The essay focuses on the need for interdisciplinary knowledge (the familiarity with components of more than one discipline) and research (the development of new knowledge, activities and expressions when components of more than one discipline are combined) in typical academic settings.
Nissani goes on to explain that many observers have defined the ‘creative moment’ as the clashing point between two unrelated elements or disciplines. He contends that ‘immigrants’ (outsiders to a particular discipline) can offer fresh insights and methodologies that an ‘over-trained’ practitioner (incapacitated from learning new ways) may never even consider. Such oversights remain ubiquitous among works of the highest quality and are defined by many as common elements to the scholarly condition that continues to hinder us today. He quotes Marx, explaining how experts tend to ignore the contextual complexity of what they are researching, offering scopes that are limited and erroneous by nature. History has proved to be an ongoing race between education and catastrophe and a central dynamic to this problem has been (and continues to be) the confusion of disciplinary knowledge as wisdom. The fragmentation of disciplines keeps us blissfully unaware of the repercussions of our ignorance. Nissani believes that a successful community of scholars, rather than worrying solely on achieving ‘disciplinary’ depth, must accept specialists, generalists, diversity and interconnections as equal contributors to the process we call progress.
As a new media practitioner, I found this article interesting and extremely important. I feel as though I am being ‘trained’ in a way that Nissani deems vital to the healthy progression of human life, and that is very inspiring. The essay also restores the fact it is important to be open to the opinions and ideas of others, and to never assume that a finite solution will exist in any situation.