User:Ssstephen/thesisoutline

⊞

abstract

… h a s   a n y o n e   e v e r   a s k e d   y o u   t h e   q u e s t i o n :   w h y   a r e   y o u   h e r e   s t e p h e n ?   t h e y   a s k e d   m e   a n d   I ' m   s t a r t i n g   t o   f o r m   a   b i t   o f   a n   o p i n i o n   o n   t h e   m a t t e r .   I t ' s   s l o w   b u t   i t ' s   c e r t a i n l y   f o r m i n g .   B u t   i   w i l l   f i g h t   t o   k e e p   i t   a m o r p h o u s   t h i s   t i m e ,   u n s t r a t i f i e d ,   w e l l   t i l l e d .   I   w i l l   d i g   a r o u n d   i n   i t   a c t i v e l y   a n d   p l a y   w i t h   i t .   B u t   i n   t h e   m e s s   a n d   c o n f u s i o n   i t ' s   o k   t o   i d e n t i f y   o r   d e s c r i b e .   N o t   l i k e   L i n n a e u s   b u t   l i k e   l y i n g   i n   t h e   g r a s s   m a k i n g   s t o r i e s   f r o m   t h e   c l o u d s .   T h a t   o n e   l o o k s   l i k e   t h e   g r i d s   h a v e   b e e n   t a k e n   a w a y .   T h a t   o n e   l o o k s   l i k e   a   p o e m ,   i t   s a y s ;   c o n s c i o u s l y ,   w i t h   l o v e ,   c a r i n g   a n d   c a r e f u l .   T h a t   o n e   a r o u n d   t h e   s u n   l o o k s   l i k e   a   g r e e n   l i o n .   T h a t   o n e   l o o k s   w a i t   w h e r e   d i d   i t   g o ,   i t ' s   c o m p l e t e l y   e s c a p e d   n o t   e v e n   a   c l o u d   a n y m o r e .   A n d   n o w   w e ' r e   l y i n g   w h e r e   t h e   c l o u d s   w e r e ,   d i s s o l v e d ,   f a l l i n g ,   f l y i n g .   T h e r e ' s   a n   i r o n y   i n   a   b l a c k s m i t h   w h o   w a n t s   t o   g i v e   u p   c o n t r o l .   A n d   t h e   s h a m a n   t r y i n g   t o   d o   t h e   s a m e .   M e a n w h i l e   t h e i r   b r o t h e r   t h e   p r i n c e   h a s   n e v e r   b e e n   a b l e   t o   c o n t r o l   t h e m .   T h e   t r i c k   i s   t o   r e m o v e   t h e   v i e w p o i n t   o f   c y b e r n e t i c s   e n t i r e l y .   W h e r e   w i l l   t h i s   t o o l   f l o w   t o ?   W h a t   i s   t h i s   s t r a n g e   n e w   d a n c e  ,  I   k i n d a   l i k e   i t ?   D o   y o u   w a n t   t o   p l a y   a   g a m e   w i t h   u s ?   O h   I   l i k e   y o u r   p i c t u r e   c a n   y o u   t e a c h   m e   h o w   t o   d r a w   l i k e   t h a t ?   I ' m   t r y i n g   t o   w o r k   o u t   a   w a y   t o   m a k e   g r a p h i c   d e s i g n   w i t h o u t   a n d   t h a t   c a n   e s c a p e   f r o m   a n d   t h a t   i m a g i n e s   o t h e r w i s e .   I   d o n ' t   r e a l l y   l i k e   s o m e   o f   t h i s   w o u l d   i t   b e   o k   i f   I   m a d e   a   f o r k ?   D o   y o u   h a v e   c o f f e e   h e r e ?   I f   I   m a d e   a   p o t   w o u l d   a n y o n e   h a v e   s o m e ?   I s   t h i s   p r a c t i c e   s u s t a i n a b l e ?   C a n   w e   m a k e   i t   b e   s o m e h o w ,   i t   m i g h t   b e   a   b i t   l e s s   s t r e s s f u l   t h e n ?   W h a t   h a p p e n s   i f   I   p l u g   t h i s   i n   h e r e ?   I t ' s   a b o u t   i n t e g r a t i o n   a n d   c o m b i n i n g   p a r t s   t h a t   w e r e   p r e v i o u s l y   d e f i n e d   a s   s e p a r a t e .   E v e r y t h i n g   i s   g o i n g   t o   b e   f i n e ,   t h a t ' s   w h y   i t s   c a l l e d   r e f i n i n g.    E v e n t u a l l y   i f   y o u   s m a s h   u p   a l l   t h e   s h a r d s   e n o u g h   t h e y   w i l l   f l o w   l i k e   s a n d .   H a v e   y o u   e v e r   b e e n   t o   M u r v a g h   b e a c h   t h e   s a n d   i s   s o   f i n e …

abstract, but slightly more tangible this time

This paper explores belief systems about labour in the "creative industries" in particular graphic design, how they function from a broad ethnographic viewpoint including culturally, spiritually, politically, religiously, in social hierarchies and "specialisations", the meaning that actors involved ascribe to the actions they carry out and how those meanings affect the world they live in. It documents some direct examinations of these activities, in my own work and that of select others, and explorations of ways to fly over the fence. It dissolves and reintegrates. The text is about the discipline of graphic design and potential to be undisciplined by highlighting some systemic and individual beliefs that may not be useful or even harmful. It is about living life within particular working conditions, a point or points in social economic and cultural webs, becoming aware of this location and exploring new imaginaries of relating practices and people. I tell my story through autoethnographic documentation, reflection, academic reference and positioning, description of new connections I have made and am making that may or may not be technological/tool-based, imaginative ravings.

note on modes of address

This change of tone stuff is fun but also a little confusing, even for me. I might play around with this idea of de-signing as it is a nice reflexive method and really relevant. I guess essentially the idea is to use fragmented modes of address to further fragment the definition of "design". But I will need to work out how much to do this, if it is useful or just distracts from the thesis. The origin of the word thesis is to set or to put, but I want to make something liquid that cant be placed but shimmers and disappears through the sand. The label "design" is a functional part of the belief system surrounding order, structure, and rationality and this is why I want to break it. Removing the label is part of loosening the object.

terminology

To de-sign design, I will assign a sign: ⊞

This symbol represents design in this writing in an attempt to avoid the word itself, in an attempt to break apart what it means, in an attempt to remove its power.

Divided. Square. Equilateral. Gridded. Structured. In the land surveying of the roman empire, a tool called the groma was used to measured and split the land: north to south, east to west. Conquered. A basis for a military camp, or a trading village. The territory becomes the map. Compartmentalised. Normung bringt Ordnung. But Descartes was also a dreamer and a mystic. Grids and magic squares have been used for a long time as a medium with magical powers. What about the designer as shaman, potter, or sacred smith? Someone who embues objects with power. ⊞ seems so rigid and structured but it's convoluted, full of magic and freedom even in maths. Even maths can escape. I'd like to take my shapes back now thank you.

1: What is a ⊞ and what is the act of ⊞?

Modes of address: reflexive mode, contextual, multiple lenses.

What compartments and boundaries exist that define "design", why are they there what do they do, what do they prevent). I would like this to be based on various modes of describing, examining and understanding. In particular I am interested in these being different from conventional ways to frame the discipline as I think a shift in viewpoint is needed. So not "designer as brander", "designer as salesperson" but instead "designer sitting at the machine, thinking" or "designer without qualities". What activities are involved in design (typing, drawing grids, communicating with other specialists, quoting, drinking coffee, working out of office hours, having panic attacks, arguing, building myths, personal expression, keyboard shortcuts, rubbing paper and exhaling, tilting your head and looking at the screen), when and how do they happen, and why? And what effects do they have? It is not about one practice but the reality of being more and less as a person than one practice. What is going on here in this thing we call design?

2: What can a ⊞ be and what can the act of ⊞ be?

Modes of address: imaginative, description of possible practices, future tools and breaking boundaries of disciplines, destructured narratives.

Again it is not about this one category. From the observations in the first question and the growing awareness that will hopefully come from this, making tools and work that cross structural boundaries and leave behind rotting links and beliefs from chapter one. It is an anticapitalist action as it is about disclosing what has been enclosed. Where else can these categories be opened and shattered and bridged and dissolved? (imaginative and description of practice: interpersonal and collaborative, destructuring society). Some of the boundaries are interpersonal rather than within or solvable by one person. I think structural issues will appear in the research of the first issue about division of labour as well as class stratification of society. Similar to the second part I hope I can find ways to bridge or break or seep through the walls. I dont really get the difference between this and issue 2. It might be more useful to expand the first issue, at the moment it seems more interesting but maybe that's because I'm focusing on it first. Maybe I can write this in a more vague way. But the first issue is driven by rage and frustration and a desire to destroy and while this is important to me I would maybe prefer to spend my time dreaming and dancing.

3: It's definitely working, but not in a good way

Modes of address: pessimism, lethargy, despair.

Is anything from the second chapter worth pursuing? Possible? The whole essence of dreaming is that its not the real world. Whats the point? Now what? Conclusions?

We became smug in our shouting, and for a while we took back the streets. But while we may have “changed the conversation,” our hoarse voices ultimately underscored our powerlessness.

(Thomson, Fritsch and O’Connor, 2016)

capitalism of the twenty-first century, turbocharged by neoliberalism, has redefined creativity to feed its own growth. Being creative in today’s society has only one meaning: to carry on producing the status quo.

(Mould, 2018)

extend from this, cruel optimism’s double bind: even with an image of a better good life available to sustain your optimism, it is awkward and it is threatening to detach from what is already not working.

(Berlant, 2011)

Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said. 'One can't believe impossible things.'

(Carroll, 1871)

bibliography

Berlant, Lauren Gail. Cruel Optimism. Duke University Press, 2011.

Carroll, Lewis. Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There. Macmillan, 1871.

Mould, Oliver. Against Creativity. Verso, 2018.

Thomson AK, Fritsch K and O’Connor C. Keywords for Radicals. 1st edition, AK Press, 2016.