« The National Grid | Main | Searching for monsters . . . »
April 06, 2005
Inviting the monster out from under the bed
More and more my thinking in relation to graphic design is being colonised by a dumb arse argument I really have no interest in. The NZ Government, as a part of their initiative to promote the 'creative industires' within the new 'knowledge economy' (buzz word, buzz word, etc etc) has latched onto 'Design' as the great saviour of the NZ economy . . . the thinking being (basically) that if we could only make shit look better we could sell more overseas. Not exactly innovative, but it's be proclaimed as such. Previously I've been able to sit back, smile, and joke about impotent politicians being led around on little sparkly leashes by big-business.
However, I'm being dragged into the ring by the new head of school here (University of Canterbury School of Fine Arts) who wants to seperate out the design deparment from the fine arts school. Basically he's of the old 'design-is-social-science' frame of mind (actually a friend of Jorge Frascara!), and, of course the pro-science rhetoric coming from government in terms of the kind of education and research they want to see in the universities supports his intentions. Increasingly any form of design research that is not economically, industry, or 'user' (ugh!) focused is being crucified . . .
I was becoming increasingly frustrated by the fact that this kind of shit was taking up all my time (having to write lengthy communications supporting my views), but I have just begun to think about this in relation to my topic. I've been wondering where to locate the monster? The Government, the industry, and the academy, are all part of the dominant narrative. They are not the monster. The monster is always the 'freak'óthat which the dominant narrative cannot understand, control, or pigeonhole nicely. I'm beginning to think the monster might be 'poetic' or 'discovery-led' research. Speculation, guess-work, chance, failure . . . this is the monster (the mysterious other) to dominant design discourse.
This seems to fit in with my work on The National Grid as a site for discourse, and I'm wondering if I might use it as an invitation . . . "Calling all monsters out from under beds, in cupboards, and shadows."
Posted by Luke Wood at April 6, 2005 11:52 AM
Comments
Hey, sorry it's been a while... thought I should just check-in to make sure you don't feel alienated from our luvely bunch of students over 'ere...
Had to comment on this one ñ why does thinking of users disgust you so much? Your position on design is quite different from mine, though it would only take a gentle push for me to say 'designers, ugh! can't they think about anyone but themselves?'
Sorry, I'm going to my Tai Chi class now (yeah, typical) so let's continue this tomorrow...
y
Posted by: Yoko Akama at April 11, 2005 05:42 PM
Okay, following on from where I left it...
It's interesting how you put all the eggs in one basket re. 'user/client/industry' and I wonder where this is coming from. In particular, how can the user, ie your audience, be bunched into the same category as clients/industry 'pseudo-scientific and restrictive monologues'?
You mention in the previous post 'Divergence...' that you were worried about the poster because, 'I'm not that confident it will "pull a crowd". This crowd is your user/ your audience/ your people, so to speak. I hate the term user anyway, because it sounds so scientific and clinical, but in reality, they are you and me. They are people. They walk the streets and side glance at stuff on the wall.
So, when you talk about your poster in relation to your 'crowd' and the role it plays in speaking to your 'crowd' for your band, idealy, you would want them to exclaim, 'shit, man, that's a mean poster!'
My suspicion is that you've probably heard or were fed too much rhetoric of users from industry. Users in their speak are consumers with purses. Or, from a social science that puts users in statistic boxes and its measured and used to prove something...
But, my parting words are these (or sentence). If you care to look at it this way, 'users' will and always be part of your work. It's that ancient proverb -'if there's no one to hear the tree falling, did the tree really fall?' Designers and audience have a deeper relationship that we care to realise, and better we get on with accepting that, it brings up more interesting discussions. For us. I think.
Posted by: Yoko Akama at April 13, 2005 02:39 PM
Yes you are bang on. I lump them together because the 'user' is essentially (I reckon) an industry/client motivated buzz-word. I think it's empty. I think people want merely to be surprised and delighted. And I don't think that I'm so special or different that what delights me will not delight others. I guess I'm not the kind of designer who's interested in making the world a 'better' place to live, and that's probably an important distinction to make. Perhaps our motivations are fundamentally different. But yes 'users' will always be part of the work, I just wonder if the 'user' (in some respects) might better be served by not being thought of? I just think of lots of the bands I like, and again mybe I'm being niave, but I'm pretty sure they do what they do cause 'they' think it sounds great. I think music created specifically 'for' an audience is always going to miss the mark.
Posted by: Luke at April 14, 2005 02:38 PM