« Searching for monsters . . . | Main | How can a poster be out of control? »
April 08, 2005
Divergence, and the location of my own monsters
Lately my topic is looking like disintegrating into many different fragments. I'd like to try and figure out if these fragments can be pieced (roughly sewn!) back together?
My recent ideas relating to design discourse and monsters, motivated by The National Grid project, have been running parallel to my working on the above image. This image extends on, and attempts to combine two projects from last year (Hot Rod Biology and The Elvis Presley Project), and is an attempt to "make" a monster. Rather than get into that specifically I wanted to try and figure out (through writing this) how this image related to a couple of other things . . . [a] discourse, and [b] the McCahon typeface I designed a couple of years ago. Ok, so . . . briefly:
1. with this Grand Saloon poster I was trying to "make" a monster by applying my notion of the monster to the process of designing it. I guess 'drawing' or visualising a monster? It occurs to me that a monster is only monstrous (unacceptable) in comparison with some existing (accepted) thing. The monster in this sense is always a critique of something, it subverts some existing 'dominant' form or idea (of course it is quickly assimilated and no longer a monstrosity once it can be easily categorised), but I guess what I'm getting at here is that 'this' is a personal monsteróit critiques my own habits, or style (I should point out that I am uncomfortable with this image, though perhaps this is only because it is being stuck up around town as publicity for our next gig, and I'm not that confident it will "pull a crowd"?)
2. Revisiting my McCahon project recently I began to see it as a very successful monster, but of a different kind to '1' above. It is not necessarily 'formally' monstrous (maybe it is, but that doesn't matter), it is a monster in that it; [a] was/is beyond my control (and hence enters into unexpected outcomes), [b] is 'scary' and potentially offensive (to a certain audience), and as such [c] contains or embodies a 'critique'.
3. Ok then so it would seem that perhaps I have discovered the linkócritique? The National Grid is motivated by a lack of critical discourse in NZ, and wishes to support and develop speculative and poetic models of enquiry. This will most certainly be a monster to our good friends in Government, at DINZ, and in much of the tertiary education sector. Actually this is precisely where this fits inóthe fact that the kind of research I'm doing (motivation and methodology wise) is not at all valued within the increasingly dominant, pseudo-scientific and restrictive monologues of user/client/industry-focused discourses.
My monster embodies a critique that moves beyond my control.
Posted by Luke Wood at April 8, 2005 08:59 AM
Comments
Hi Luke, been a long time I know...
anyway... your Monster (or monsters, you've been breeding quite a collection now) "embodies a critique that moves beyond (your) control." This is complicated, if I get what you are saying then the Object (typeface, poster, cushion) acts as a critique of your own practice (not others) and is beyond your own (direct) control, you do bring it into being (build it and flick the switch) however it's critique (or lifecycle) is out of your control....
if this is so then maybe it is like this Blog, in that you create it but can't control what it gives you back....
this week with Laurene we read a chapter of Michel de Certeau (The practice of Everyday life) "Walking in the City", in it there was a para which (to paraphrase) reads "rather than remaining within a field of discourse that upholds (the cities/a designs) priviledge...one can ana lyse...the practices which have outlived its decay" - what I read from this (I think I've got a hold of it) is that as the planned city (read "the planned design") deteriates and is rendered irrelevant it leaves something behind, it is this stuff which still lives on; "everyday stuff", "sureptuitious activities that are concealed within... the organization" - My reading of this is that this stuff is the life and energy of the city (the design), it is outside the plan of the designer but it is more organic and stronger than the original plan, will outlive it and can teach us stuff we don't know...those "surruptitious activities" can critique our cities and our designs...it is the unplanned in their nature that makes them stronger/ elucidating/educational/ interesting.. maybe there's something here for you, maybe...
the National Grid is a great idea (and also, it seems to me, is an eg. of what you are talking about)... it made me wonder whether you have ever had it out with Yoko re. User-centred design?
cheers
Neal
Posted by: Neal Haslem at April 12, 2005 03:27 PM
I think Neal's making a really good point here. I think what you are beginning to touch on, is this 'out-of-control' aspect to design.
Another reading Laurene gave us was 'The practice of practice: practice based research in architecture' by Leon van Schaik. (I'm sure we can post these readings out to you, I found them really helpful). Anyway, he writes,
'What can we know about our knowledge of architecture, our beliefs about design, our assertions about what motivates us?' The correctness of our position is of little moment, and proof is contingent on circumstance. What we can demonstrate, but only through our designs, is the formative value these beliefs have in our practice. We cannot prove that anyone else will experience what we assert our designs convey...'
Designers don't have control over how things are read, interpreted, taken in and used. We could have a good shot at speculating this, but there are always elements that are unpredictable.
So, putting this back to you, as this is a articulation of you as a design practitioner, how do you feel about design being in/out of control? Does this scare you, or fascinate you? Whilst you design, is this something you are always fighting or embracing? How do you define control, were we ever in control, or was that a dellusion?
Your take on it being a personal critique is also really interesting as well. The creation that had gone 'wrong' points to the way it had been created. It suggests a 'flaw' or an 'intervention' that took place that steered the course to an unknown outcome.
Posted by: Yoko Akama at April 13, 2005 03:07 PM
Hey good to have you fellas back on board/blog! Good feedback too. Yes Yoko and I have discussed her namby-pamby tendencies to want to please everybody, but I'm not sure I really got through to her yetómaybe in May?
To try and answer some of these questions . . .
The McCahon typeface wasn't a personal critique. I was referring specifically to the recent band poster in that respect. The typeface inhabited a few potential critiques (I think?) in regard to notions of appropriation between the 'fine' and 'commercial' arts. It also critiqued the myth and mystique surrounding McCahon ó bringing him back down to size/earth. It critiqued art about art. It critiqued the gallery too . . .
The 'thing' about this (monster) was that none of this was actually intended by me. I know it sounds like crap, but I honestly (niavely) hadn't intended or expected these readings. Probably because when I made the thing I was really only making it to learn Fontographer, and McCahon seemed like a good place to steal some letters from (basically didn't want to have to consider drawing my own forms).
Reciprocally, and getting to Yoko's questions, yes I am interested in the idea of being 'out-of-control'. Actually my first post on this blog following our last GRC was about exactly this! I think it interests me because it's something I'm not used to, or comfortable with? My past practice has been very slick, measured and controlled. Recent shifts in my practice (both in design and in music) have seen a move away from this. Why? Maybe because after 8 years worth of regurgitating my modernist education I got really really bored!?
How do I feel about being out of control? I think it is scary. I'm trying to catalogue all the different things that have popped up in relation to the McCahon typefaceósome of these are very scary! I think I will talk about this at the next GRC?
I think the terms 'flaw' and 'intervention' are really important (cheers Yoko) . . . maybe they should be in my list of terms defining the monster. I wouldn't call the typeface 'flawed' but I do see it operating as an 'intervention'. Whereas, perhaps, the band poster contained 'flaws' but didn't really 'intervene' in anything?
Posted by: Luke at April 14, 2005 02:25 PM
Hey this is funny! It's just occured to me that actually, out of all of us, perhaps Yoko is most actively seeking the out-of-control, by putting the 'user' so implicitly within the design process.
And so of course it also occurs to me how important the 'user' is in the McCahon typeface project.
Shit I still hate that word though . . . it just sounds so touchy-feely aspirational affirmative ugh. It reminds me of those tapes you can get by someone like Tony Robbins to listen to as you drive around in your car saying over and over again, "I am a good person, I do care about the user, I am a good person, I do care . . .
Posted by: Luke at April 14, 2005 02:45 PM