« Saturday | Main | Poster surgery . . . the mad designer »
July 06, 2005
Reflection
Ok so what the hell have I gotten out of this project, and how does it relate to the monster (if at all)?
At the beginning I stated that I was interested in 1. exposing the process of designing, and 2. exploring the unfinished nature of the designed artefact. This was in relation to my use of the metaphor of MONSTROSITY, and the unfinished, half-made aspects of a particular type of monster.
1. Initially I would say this project was a failure because of my inability to expose the "real design process" . . . but of course this is actually quite interesting in itself (and relates directly to another aspect of the monsteróthe significance/value of failure). In this respect the idea to expose the process essentially became a part of the process . . . not only in the sense that I (to some extent) fabricated the process, but alsoómore importantly perhapsóthat this 'idea' actually drove formal/conceptual decision making from very early on.
2. Not sure how important this is, but during the week I grew quite frustrated by the fact that I wasn't getting any feedback from the audience . . . were people noticing? Were people engaged? Some were stolen? This of course brings up the questionówho's this for? Does the monster serve the practitioner or the audience. Right now I'd like to say the practitioner primarily, but . . .
3. The practitioner is used to seeing their work in various stages of unfinishedness, the important thing about this project is that the unfinishedness (supposedly) is 'shown' . . . to an audience. This is where the discomfort would/should come into play ó the practitioner is not comfortable showing an unfinished artefact. I think this has to do with engagement? We want the work (if it is being 'shown') to engage the intended audience (I want people to know about and come to the gig), and perhaps ironically, I'm most uncomfortable when I feel like I might not acheive some form of engagement! With this particular project I was hoping to 'engage' the viewer by revealing the process, but of course I fretted over each poster 'working on it's own' at the end of every day. So there was a discomfort there . . . but I essentially tried to nullify it, make it comfortable . . . I'd like to elaborate on this.
I guess I've learnt that moments of discomfort are pervasive within the process of designing. They are however quickly 'dealt with', either through rationalising them (thinking ahead, speculating as to how they might 'work out'), or deleting them (stepping back). Either way you end up "happy" before you move on. In this sense disruptions (which are unavoidable) are made tolerable.
So what if I were to focus on/look for the intolerable disruption? This would make sense in terms of the monstrous metaphor, the figure of monster being necessarily unacceptable and/or offensive. Is it in the intolerable disruption that the monster comes into play . . . where things begin to get uncomfortable?
I'm reminded of Cameron's pointing me to the etymology of the word monster, 'monstra'óthe Latin, 'to show'. That monstrosity has something to do with 'showing', which is what graphic designers do, is interesting. Cameron said (I think) something like "a monster manifests it's own showingness . . . it shows it's showingness" or something like that. I'm reminded of this conversation because through this project I've become quite aware of the fact that as people we tend to only ever 'show' that which we are comfortable with. So, of course, I'm wondering, why wouldn't we (only show what we're comfortable with)? And, how could we not? (being that the desire to refine/correct is almost subconscious/automatic)
4. Laurene's suggestions:
[a] do it again. . . I think I will. I have a couple of ideas involving different iterations of this project, one involving collaboration (rest of the band), and one involving taking random screenshots.
[b] think about where the posters are displayed . . . this was (I think?) in relation to me saying that Christchurch wasn't a good 'poster town' ó that it's hard to get posters up here (council bylaws!), and that I'm not sure there's a culture of 'looking-at-posters' here.
[c] perform a 'surgery' on the bollards . . . I'm going to get myself a white labcoat and a scapel, head into town at midnight and do this. I'm hoping to cut back the posters that have now been pasted over mine and reveal the different layers of my own images. I'm going to get someone to video this and I guess I'll have to do it in the next couple of days.
[d] try finishing it first and then working backwards . . . I like this idea. I have no idea how this might work, but I'm going to give it a go.
[e] work towards discomfort . . .
Posted by Luke Wood at July 6, 2005 04:21 PM
Comments
1- I'm still not sure if you were trying to expose the design process ... It might just be a language issue but it seems to me a video of you working on the poster would be the only way to expose the actual process (which is to me linked to time) not just steps of the process (which it seems to me the posters were). It would also allow you to go back on every choice you made and maybe question them.
2- It seems to me the public lack of reaction might also be linked to the awareness of the project. I know I looked at the posters not like individual items but as echography pictures of something in formation, waiting for the final one... So it seems to me what you did is actually not really creating monsters but a very organic way of exposing the gestation of your poster.
3- I totally agree with you about the intolerable disruption. It seems to me this is the only way to create a monster... if you're happy with it, it's not a monster. You have to take the choice out of you... I dunno maybe get a blind man to tell you when to stop. Something that would damage your artistic freedom and create rage. Isn't it so that the father of the monster has to reject/hate it (in anglosaxon tradition)?
Anyway sorry if I don't make sense.
Posted by: ELS at July 13, 2005 09:37 AM
Hey thanks for chipping in Emilie . . . interesting that you mentioned the video thing. A couple of nights ago I went into town and had Malcolm film me while I performed a 'surgery' on the bollards to reveal my poster by cutting away parts of the ones that had been stuck over top. Following my video for my seminar I've been thinking about this a bit . . . about performance, and about inhabiting a character.
What you say about 'gestation' is interesting too. I like that word. It sounds slightly monstrous don't you think?
It scared me that you agreed with the intolerable disruption observation . . . scares me because you're quite right, it's monstrous when I'm not happy with it! Does remind me of something someone said in Melbourne though . . . the Mad Scientist doesn't necessarily see their own creation as monstrous. Obviously in conflict with your observation that the 'father' must reject/hate the monster . . . Which of course calls into question (again) who this is for . . . who am I trying to scare, upset, disturb ó myself, or the audience? Again I want to go back to the McCahon font which I think did both?
Getting back to the point though . . . how, and why would I design something I didn't like? I think I need to consider this before I move on. I've been thinking a lot about 'generative metaphor' . . . apparently something Donald Schon wrote about . . . I need to track this down though as I've currently only read references to it. As an idea it seems very close to my interest in monstrosity as a metaphor . . .
Posted by: Luke Wood at July 14, 2005 04:59 PM