March 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    Apr »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Month March 2008

"Everyone Wears Piercings and Tattoos"

So says the Baja Beach owner Conrad Chase, the owner of the first night club to swap VIP cards with an injected VIP chip inside one’s arm. The following video has been made by Drew Hemment director of the Futuresonic Festival.

Reason for implementing this technology: “It has once again shown that the Baja Beach Club is a trend setter.” ~Mr. Chase

Once again, the question I have is more of a “should we do this?” rather than “can we do this?” The early twentieth century was preoccupied with questions of whether or not we can accomplish certain goals with technology. Now that we are capable of executing the tasks we desire, there is a strong need to sit down and discuss why we should be doing the things we do. Some might say, “well, that’s inevitable.” And it is. Some think that if things are going to happen anyways, we, designers, should be the ones to be leading the way in terms of technological development. But what about the ethics?

When I was an undergraduate at UPenn, I took a class in bioethics given by Prof. Glenn McGee. At Penn, they have a whole world class department dedicated to discussions of ethics in the context of bioengineering and the natural sciences.

If we, designers, are to be one of the future “gatekeepers” of technology, there must be a greater discussion about the products we create than what is currently available. I have my own reasons for being uncomfortable with Mr. Chase’s rationale – “It has once again shown that the Baja Beach Club is a trend setter.” I admire his adoption of some really cool technology. He does have a point when he says that it’s another form of body piercing. If we’re piercing our bodies, implanting silicon, and having tattoos everywhere I guess it’s not hard to extrapolate and implant microchips inside ourselves. All the more acceptable when we start to bring up artificial hearts, stents, and blood glucose monitors to read sugar levels and other vitals. However, implanting chips to not worry about bringing credit cards around is quite different from a stent needed to sustain life. For me, the question is, What is a human body? For example, it can range from those who consider it to be just a simple container of the soul to those who consider it the temple of God (or deity) that shouldn’t be tempered with so lightly.

Even in terms of culture, there are those who have no problem with decorating their bodies and those who, say, for religious reasons, take extra caution and maintain a certain discipline/code of behavior or ethics (ex. Jews who circumcise newborn males and cover their heads, Muslim women who cover their faces, people who take on strict diets, etc). What does this type of technology mean for them? For example, would someone with such strong beliefs about their body in the context of their culture or faith be able to have VIP status at the Baja Beach Club? I know it’s a stupid question b/c I’m sure there are other ways to get in as a VIP. I’m just hypothetically talking about the future … cause they say things are inevitable …

Problem of Theory & Practice in Gramsci & Dewey

I’ve been reading a bit more Antonio Gramsci (Marxist Theorist) and John Dewey’s Art as Experience. Although the two have two very different notions of reality, they seem to have the same macro-problem.

PROBLEM: Separation of Thought and Action.

FOR GRAMSCI:
Thought is the theory of contradictions in a society and action is the people’s actual consciousness. Because of a separation between the two, he was interested in how to align the people’s consciousness with the theoretical. For him, there is a crucial issue of freedom at stake. When thought and action are one, this is freedom (he calls this the philosophy of praxis, a.k.a. Marxism).

Ok, this is interesting but what does it mean? Well, Gramsci lived in a time when the Italian populace was more in tune with foreign culture than a national Italian culture. That’s because, according to Gramsci, the intellectuals/elite in Italy weren’t concerned with the lower classes; they were still tied to the caste tradition. He writes,

All this means that the entire “educated class,” with its intellectual activity, is detached from the people-nation, not because the latter has not shown and does not show itself to be interested in this activity at all levels … but because in relation to the people-nation the indigenous intellectual element is more foreign than the foreigners.
(An Antonio Gramsci Reader, p. 369)

He asks, “What is the meaning of the fact that the Italian people prefer to read foreign writers?” For him, with the exception of opera, there was no organic relationship between high culture and low culture. Then what is needed to bridge the gap between thought and action? Well, for Gramsci, he says that organic intellectuals are needed (to help create a counter-hegemony). Organic intellectuals are intellectuals from among the people. This makes sense. These individuals from the people feel tied to them, know their needs, aspirations, and feelings (Isn’t this what we do as interaction designers?).

This particular theme of Gramsci deals with his concern for the lack of a vernacular Italian novel that consists of both the national and popular. Simply put, he was envious of the French who had an Alexandre Dumas. He wanted an Italian Alexandre Dumas.

Gramsci and Design:
Is it possible to create products (whether they be novels, artifacts, services, organizations) that reflect the people’s popular psyche? By “people,” I don’t just mean the majority; people can come to mean subaltern people, especially in the context of a great chunk of Gramsci’s works. For example, can we have a Korean American Alexandre Dumas? (This is the theme of my thesis) Or design for the vision-impaired?

FOR DEWEY:
Unlike Gramsci’s entitative/materialist reality, Dewey has an essentialist reality. He is concerned with man, the “live creature,” and his environment (note: different from “surrounding”). In Art as Experience, he, too, is concerned with the separation of thought and action.

Dewey begins his book by stating that a philosophy/theory of art is an effort to understand the actual experiences. He writes,

For theory is concerned with understanding, insight, not without exclamations of admiration, and stimulation of that emotional outburst often called appreciation. It is quite possible to enjoy flowers in their colored form and delicate fragrance without knowing anything about plants theoretically. But if one sets out to understand the flowering of plants, he is committed to finding out something about the interactions of soil, air, water and sunlight that condition the growth of plants. (p. 2)

Hence, the situation or environment is key to understanding. It is in the action, the actual doing that one experiences life at the fullest and it’s these fulfilling experiences that man is incessantly after.

When he talks about this experience, it consists of both thought (esthetic undergoing, perception) and action (artistic doing, making) – his artistic-esthetic experience. He says that there cannot be a distinction between esthetic and artistic; they must be united for an experience to be an experience. An artist must have both doing and undergoing while creating a product, and a beholder/audience must also do both in order to create his/her own experience.

So how does he relate to Gramsci? Well, he, too, is uncomfortable with how we’ve come to distinguish between high art (placing them in museums) and low art. This wasn’t so in past cultures. His goal is to recover the continuity of esthetic experience with normal processes of living. He says, we need to go back to “experience of the common or mill run of things” (p. 9).

Activities, such as dancing, making music, painting, making drama, were just parts of group life – the significant life of an organized community. In fact, the Greeks formed the idea that art is an act of reproduction/imitation. Art used to have such a close connection with daily life. Now, we must go out of our way to go to a museum, a theatre, etc. Art has lost its indigenous status and great paintings, for example, are secluded in the homes of the wealthy and powerful. Gramsci would not be happy.

Dewey and Design:
Dewey’s pragmatism and works have enormous implications for design. He’s all about interaction. In fact, Moholy-Nagy, when he came to Chicago to start the New Bauhaus (didn’t last long although from what I know, it’s had influence in the creation of IIT’s design school), met Dewey through a mutual friend in NY. Dewey’s treatise on art became a textbook for the New Bauhaus. His chapter, “Having an Experience,” as Richard Buchanan says, is THE text, the foundational piece, for CMU’s interaction design program.

FINAL THOUGHTS:
What does all this mean for the nature of products or even the purpose of the things we create? For example, I think it’s great that the i-pod is in the MOMA as an iconic artifact of everyday life along with Eames’ chair. Taking parts from Gramsci and Dewey, can we start talking more about the products we can make and how they support/shape sub-cultures, groups of cultures, and Culture?

(btw, I’m in no-wise a marxist. I’m taking the parts that are interesting to me in these theories and looking for practical applications for Design)

A Painting of a Dying _____

Today, I heard a story. A group of church elders commissioned an artist to paint pictures of a dying church. I suppose they wanted to move their congregation members by showing what they don’t ever want to be. However, when the artist produced a set of paintings, they were shocked to see a nice cathedral with towering steeples, expensive chandeliers in the auditorium, an extravagant “fellowship hall,” recreation room, and everything fanciful. The paintings even had groups of people all dressed up nicely coming in and out of the building.

When asked why he didn’t have an image of a run-down building with weeds and broken windows, the image they had had in mind, he responded that the type of death for a church is not such a deterioration, but a spiritual decaying. A church may have it’s people, activities, and nice facilities, but if the spirit is lost, all is lost.

I think about how this relates to the enterprise of design and what some in the design world call “4th order” design, that is, the design of organizations and ideas/thoughts. George Nelson, the renown designer, believed that organizations were the greatest design products of the 20th century. As much as designers create “posters” (graphic design) and “toasters” (industrial design), these products are made possible by organizations and corporations. Can we drive around our Toyota Camrys without the colossal organization (whatever organization means) that “builds” it?

Like the image of a dying church, have many organizations have already lost their soul, their essence? Is there a need for change, and can designers play a role in such change?

Thoughts to consider:

  1. Managing Design : companies have been doing this for quite some time, managing the various creative departments of their organization.
  2. Designing Management : Oooo. Sounds so much more interesting, doesn’t it? I’ll post more on this later …