Hot Rod Biology

Hey Luke, this is my feedback.
I think it's a really well written proposal and it's articulated really clearly. In some ways, it has similarities with Josies, her design agent being humour and wit. But as we were discussing her topic yesterday, it became clear that she was starting to come to terms with her artefact (end product of her design humour process) not being funny for others and came to the realisation that it really wasn't what she was wanting to achieve.

Now, I think this might be an interesting thing for you to consider, as you seem to be talking about the process that is monstrous, not the end product being monstrous to others. But I also think it worth considering whether you would evaluate the artifact being 'monstrous'.

I also thought it interesting that the way you describe 'accidents, failures and unfinished' has a randomness to it, and echoes your passion for the book 'Dice Man'. It seems you're conscious of the 'proper design process' but it might be worth explaining what this means - is there such a thing? I think by articulating this more clearly, we could begin to understand how you are trying to subvert or inject some randomness to it. The thought of the Dice Man (I haven't read it yet, will do when I get through my dozen books I've got out to read!) had also made me think about the way the randomness is a result of a very strategic system (ie the dice and it's 6 permutations). How would this relate to your design process, I wonder? How much are you willing to let go of the control? Can the mere consciousness of wanting to cause an accident, prevent itself from happening?

In the 'why' section of your proposal could be fleshed out more. I think this is where you could really critique the 'linear problem-solving paradigm' and why this model is in discordance with your practice or even on a broader context, detriments the design practice in general. Then the link between that, and the pragmatic vocational orientation would be stronger.

I also like the 'half-life' idea and the transparency you introduce by stating it's incompleteness. I guess it's something which I ponder about, the 'life' of design and where it stops/starts. In my topic, the audience plays a critical part to my design process and the design almost starts its life when it's engaging the reader and takes on a different journey that is unknown by the designer.

I'll stop now, because I think I could go on ranting. Thanks for asking me to comment, I found it a valuable exercise.
y

Thanks Yoko! That last bit you mention is exactly why I was keen to seek your opinion . . . the 'unknown' journey seems to be a link between out topics . . . also the idea of reliquishing control. I guess it's in our intentions that we differ . . . mine being entirely selfish!

I totally see your point about the artefact. Actually, just last night, I sat down to begin working on my talk for the GRC and I realised I had two different things in mind ñ Process Monsters, and Artefact Monsters.

"Can the mere consciousness of wanting to cause an accident, prevent itself from happening?" . . . yeah I think it can, and this is something I was really critical of in Anna Gerber's book "All Messed Up". I'd hate to go down the same old road . . . maybe that's an important part of the topic then. I'd like to say I'm more interested in learning to 'notice' chance and the benefits of failure, rather than devising 'strategies' to create such phenomena . . .

Thanks for pointing out the need to define the 'proper process' I refer to but never really unpack . . . I tend to just think everyone knows what I mean, but of course that's stupid of me, and I can totally see now that the dark corners my offensive little monsters are currently hiding in can become illuminated through my defining what's "proper". I'm not sure 'illuminated' is the right word here . . . monsters get scared too you know!

LW

Hi Luke,
Working on your presentation ALREADY, god, if you're not off doing some wild thing with the band, you're sure are productive!

I'm glad some of the comments I made had made you think, and you're right in saying that we do have very interesting overlaps with our topic that seems to be coming from very different ends. My topic is shifting itself towards designing for participation, and how the process and outcome achieves this. This is where I am interested in the issue of ownership/authorship/control and degrees of freedom, choice and possibilities. When I say participation, it's not necessarily a physical one, but it's a way that I'd like to describe the engagement of the audience.

I hope I'm being successful in getting rid of the goody-two-shoes perception you guys seem to have of me, how awful!

y