« Bad Design (Unbeliever) | Main | Meeting your maker (with particular reference to Bruce Mau)... »
February 15, 2006
Peripheral/Marginal (with a loose reference to imagination and innovation)
The word 'peripheral' has come up a lot lately... maybe it's just that thing where you start to see your research everywhere in everything? Anyway I wrote this to Jonty yesterday (in ref to the editorial for The National Grid)...
"... I was thinking about the word 'peripheral' - how it comes up in Noel's piece, and how it could be applied to most of the articles here. Then I thought this thread that's appeared, without our predetermining it, kind of fits in nicely with our ongoing attempts to evolve a manifesto for this project. I guess I quite like the idea The National Grid will be/is peripheral. I like the connection to the optional bits and pieces you attach to your computer, but more generally a 'periphery' is the outer edge, an imprecise boundary of some domain. Our domain is graphic design, and I'd call us peripheralists, as opposed to centralists."
I googled "Peripheralism"...
... and of course it's already a thing (I liked what Emilie said about finding/inventing a word that you then work to define). Most interesting, and pertinent perhaps having just referred to Jonty and I as peripheralists as opposed to centralists, is John Watson, a founder of "Behaviorism". Watson has given the best explanation of Peripheralism in relation to its antonym, centralism. Centralism enlightens that root causes of behavior are to be found in the central nervous system, the brain and spinal cord. Peripheralism pleaded that peripheral events, external to the central nervous system, play a major role in behavior." (also here)
Peripheralism, in psychology, is described as the explanation of psychological events emphasizing peripheral human functions, as those of skeletal muscles or the sex organs, rather than cognition or other processes of the central nervous system. Which of course I really liked, and it doesn't seem to hard to appropriate that idea metaphorically into Design... a discipline that (in conversation at least) values meaning over aesthetics, the function over the form (of course that's rubbish, but it's still fairly pervasive design speak!). But I'm not interested in it in that way... I want to use it in relation to my investigation into practitioner-led research (behavior?). I think there's something there about the 'parts' of your practice you investigate or reflect on. We always focus on what's central - I think we're brought up that way, taught to? In this research however I've often attempted to look at the peripheral... influences outside of, or in the shadows of, the immediate domain of my practice as a designer. (I've been interviewing Dylan Herkes for The National Grid, and I'd like to call Dylan a "peripheral graphic designer", in the sense that the graphic design he does is almost just a by-product of the other things, music and film etc...)
I really like that the definition above, "emphasizing peripheral human functions", recognizes instinctual events (esp sex) as well as those of logic. In my "Inviting The Monster" DVD I talked briefly about the linear (problem solving) trajectory of the 'good design process', where instinct is marginalised. There's a direct link here insofar as my 'monstrous manifestoes' have, at least, been attempts to find value in the tangential and disruptive... the marginal. Sticking with psychology. 'marginal' is defined as relating to or located at the fringe of consciousness. Nice huh...
I've been thinking about 'generative practice'... what that might mean (mainly in terms of my own practice, but in the hope that whatever I learn could be communicated to a broader community of practice). I've been thinking about imagination, innovation, and invention... how these things are related, and how the things I've been doing are attempts at strategic prompts for these, especially imagination (fantasy). I like the idea that imagination is peripheral (becomes 'marginalised' as you become an adult), it's association with play... an extension (keyboard, mouse), expansion of the capabilities of your self. It's about the outer edges, boundaries, limits (monsters and sex). And I think it goes without saying that innovation most often comes from the fringe... the figure of the 'mad scientist', Dr Frankenstein, he leaves medical school because his interests are marginal. And there's a nice twist there... 'marginal' here implies social unacceptability and/or being of little interest, yet it also points to a generative zone of imagination and unknown possibilities - the periphery.
To use this word occured to me in conversation with Lisa. She'd read my attempt at an exegesis plan/outline, and talked about peripheral vision/experience in relation to my mentioning that "the monster has been lurking in the shadowy areas of my research for a while now". I was talking about my realisation of the possibilty that 'I' was both the monster and topic of my research. But here I'm trying to talk more about the fact that I couldn't quite see that... and that somehow that's the point. It's about being able to locate things in hindsight, because when you're 'in it' you are in the centre, and you can never see the periphery clearly, if at all. So in keeping with that train of thought I want to link back to moments where an interest in the peripheral/marginal had already reared it's monstrous head...
Posted by Luke Wood at February 15, 2006 09:52 AM
Comments
I like your thread of thought, and the oxymoron that's associated with 'focusing on peripherals'. I also think, as you noted in my blog, that it is about perspectives – the way we look at things. In some way, I find those peripheral values and activities you point to is also the core to a creative act. Why are these things in the peripheral/margins, and who decided to place them there? Is there a rule (or centralism) in design? Are you implying that this is the old baggage from Modernism?
However, if you read literature from other areas in Interaction Design, you'd find that there is emphasis on play that facilitates imagination and innovation. Some disciplines are moving towards integrating those activities and values you point to as peripheries, into the core activity.
If you read my reply to your angsty barrage caffine overdose, I really think that we are acknolwedging similar things within our research. Especially with reference to 'subconscious thoughts'.
Posted by: Yoko Akama at February 16, 2006 01:07 PM
Also, to add, I think it's not an either-or, but both. What is a peripheral without the core?
Posted by: Yoko Akama at February 17, 2006 01:46 PM
Gosh I hate to admit it but the oxymoronic-ness hadn't occured to me. Ha ha! It's quite beautiful though huh... a hopeless beautiful statement, an impossible manifesto. A monster!
I know I slipped into it above, but in hindsight I want to point out that in terms of my research specifically, I'm interested in the peripheral in relation to the practitioner, not the industry, or even the 'domain' of design. I'm intrested in the idea that there is an outer surface to one's practice that we can't see, or don't notice, and I want to suggest that you can only see it by looking back... residual reflection, as opposed to reflection-in-action.
As icky as it sounds, could you possibly point me to some of the interaction design readings you mention... I at least feel like I should know the enemy?
Posted by: Luke Wood at February 17, 2006 02:19 PM
Your thoughts on 'peripheral in relation to the practitioner or 'domain' of design' makes complete sense to me in terms of understanding your research. I think I get it now. Are you like an outsider, peering in? Or an insider wanting to break out? Is that why you resonate with monsters and aliens?
Assuming that I have the ball-park idea of your research, I really like the 3-dimensionality you are layering the practice with. I can't believe that you don't think your postmodern, because I think your thinking is. Acknowledgement of the ideosyncracies of self and human-ness is a very postmodern quality...
I also like your definition of 'residual reflection'. It sounds like the things you've secreted and excreted as a by-product of doing. It's like examining scats or urine samples to understand the nature of the creature. Brrrr (on a side note, did you know wombats have square scats? It's true, I've seen it, and I even have photos of it.) But I like the scientific ring to it. Your research is a contradiction indeed (postmodern), as you embrace both science and humanism.
I'll e-mail you some readings. It's not as icky as it sounds, well at least some of the papers I've found. My development of Playful Triggers (building on what Daria did with her PhD, is about how playfulness, enhances conversations and thinking. I think it's a designer-ly thing that we have.
Posted by: Yoko Akama at February 20, 2006 10:01 AM
as i was reading your's and yoko's thoughts it got me thinking about how the peripheral and the marginal transient are such transient things. they are always relative to where you are and when you move, they move and what was on the outside can end up in the centre.
perhaps this is what has happened to you and george - you both moved and your places changed. the view from your houses of practice shifted and something new (not always good) came into focus.
just a thought
laurene
Posted by: laurene at February 22, 2006 07:47 AM