THESIS OUTLINE (1029853)

Thesis outline of Kimberley:

(Issue #1: The use of categorisation divide, exclude and therefore may reproduce relations of social domination on what is being categorised.)

The relations formed across different items of an aggregation participate to its understanding as a whole. However, the record of these relations may stumble upon the limits imposed by the use of categorisation which rather operates through the process of division. These limits are specifically threatening within organisation systems related to the cultural field, such as libraries, archives or collections, if we assume that these infrastructures are intended to be inclusive. By dividing instead of connecting, by confining the understanding of something in "what [it] is" instead of "what it does" (Drucker, 2013), there is a risk that the use of categorisation may reproduce relations of social domination on what is being categorised.

(Issue #2: Categorisation prevents the activation of what is being categorised, locking up items, which is contradictory to the informative purpose of an archive (for example)...)

Although collected items need to be stored following a well thought order (for retrieval purposes), they also need to be activated when consulted. This activation begins with the understanding of an item's position within its hosting structure and in relation to its neighbouring items. Thus, revealing implicit stories (in archives). If archives may preserve the elements of (hi)story, it fails to narrate/return the full story, often hidden under smooth search boxes.

(Issue #3: Limited ways of navigating the different bodies of information.)

Online, a flat navigation experience might result from sorting a body of information through means of categorisation. Lists are skimmed linearly, alphabetically, chronologically, hierarchically and in all possible modes. However, these modes of navigation often lack in translating the relations that exist between the contained elements. Binary approaches, such as the simple use of "next" and "previous" buttons to circulate among contents, tend to impose a unique worldview on bodies of information, in other words, a missed opportunity to acknowledge the specificities of a collection.

Relation between the issues:

The act of classifying entries, within an ensemble, imposes a disciplinary system for navigating this ensemble. Hierarchical and binary, the hosting structure often limits the categorised entries to what the structure assumes they are rather than opening their meaning to the interpretation of their audience. The sole reason for such structures seems to be the speed at which an entry will be retrieved. However, certain entries, organised in such a way, might loose their meaning. The acknowledgment of relations that link entries to each other can play a role against semantic violence induced by naming, classifying, standardising. (semantic violence: Relation of social domination reproduced in our habitual speech forms. (Zizek, 2008))

Research question:

Lists and the way we navigate them are a direct consequence of the use of categorisation. The linear navigation imposed affects our interpretation of the elements of the list. How may narration be introduced to the navigation of a list in order to bring forward its curatorial agency?

Vernacular approach to archiving:

The case of vernacular archives sustained by ordinary people does not necessarily need to meet such strict requirement of efficiency. Often times, the narration supporting the content of a collection is accessible, at least orally. In this thesis, I would like to look at several examples of archives using narration as a way to guide their public. I am particularly interested in instances where this narration is translated into code in order to navigate online collections. Finally, I would like to research if such approach are also applicable to larger public archives.

Issue #1: Lack of narration/ identify narrative patterns in the publishing of disparate content

...Connecting disparate entries (or contributions) can be challenging, however this connection is necessary to make a body of works intelligible.

...Create coherence, patterns

Issue #2: Design decision-making, where does it belong?

...Personal feeling of being illegitimate to make decisions regarding aesthetic choices & not wanting to freeze content in one meaning, one truth. Use of graphic design in a way that the power of its role remains into the making of the structure, the creation of a set of rules which will determine some elements of the published work but not invade it. Balance between voices.

...Subjective aesthetical design choices are arbitrary decisions which I am not necessarily interested to be involved with.

...Alternative organisation to the classic hierarchy

...Use "design agency" alternatively: Design systems requiring to be responded to by a number of contributors in order to create a whole out of a plurality of contributions.

Issue #3: Negotiating space, coordinating disparate entries in a common space, create order but avoid domination, favour connections

...How flexible can the structure be? How much agency is left for the contributors to find their space into the structure?

...Making protocols?

Introduction & context:

This research responds to the need of redefining the role and position of the graphic designer in the process of publishing collectively.

A narrative approach is often at the origin of design decisions in the pursuit of organising content in a way that 'makes sense' to its audience and is faithful to the intention of its author. Narration allows such logic by connecting events in a directional order, may this direction be spatial or temporal or both (Le Guin, 1980). Whereas in fiction a narrative's structure might be identifiable through its literary nature (time and relation markers, for example), intentional narrative patterns can also be found in the graphic elements determined by a designer and which echoes with the idea that narration is ‘an immensely flexible technology’ (Le Guin, 1980) that serves to organise ‘wildly disparate experiences’. (If the 'wildly disparate experiences' represent a diversity of contributions, in the case of a collective publication, the designer might be close to the role of the 'narrator' in its attempt to organise a plurality of contributions into a singular surface destined for publishing.)

This thesis also originates from the motive of decentralising the design decision-making process, letting go of the responsibility of making arbitrary aesthetic choices as a designer while focusing on the aspects of curatorial agency this role might confer with the intention of inducing responsible collective outcomes as an alternative to classic hierarchy and roles division. (Use design tools differently to create responsive and playful systems to publish ensembles of disparate contributions.)

Departing from the singular point of view of an isolated graphic designer, this reflexion aims at unravelling a methodology for facilitation (stemming from the practice of creating templates, conditions, "conditional design" https://www.conditionaldesign.org/manifesto/) and propose a flexible protocol for negotiating and coordinating space in a shared publishing territory.

The potential repurposing of graphic design tools towards facilitation intentions leads me to the following question:

Research Q.: How could methodologies used in graphic design be derived to create open systems that facilitate the process of publishing collectively?

This thesis will be articulated in three distinct parts. Under the form of an alternative lexicon, I will firstly attempt to define the role of the graphic designer sliding towards one of facilitator and the purposes of designing what will be named here "open systems". From this lexicon will stem out the second part, presented under the form of a methodology. This methodology will summarise the aspects that need to be considered when designing an "open system" (...). Finally, in a third part, this methodology will be illustrated through a concrete application (...).

i. Lexicon

Goal of this chapter:

This lexicon might include terms that are already defined in dictionaries but I want to redefine them in my own words and in relation to the context of this research. They might refer to and paraphrase the work of authors as well as being illustrated by concrete examples. Since the thesis is aiming at redefining the role of the graphic designer this lexicon will also support the delineation of this role.

"Open structures" (or "open systems")

a. Examples of structures (more or less connected to graphic design): templates & scripts

b. "liquid publishing" & "the bar"

While completing a bachelor's in Graphic Design, I teamed up with a friend to make a series of—what a former teacher later qualified as—”liquid publications”. At the time, the concept seemed straightforward and was spontaneously executed: we repeatedly invited ourselves to book launches, exhibition openings and other art fairs taking place in the city, offering guests our reinterpretation of an event into alcoholic mixed drinks. We quickly built up a portfolio of uncanny and provocative recipes varying from lip-numbing Sichuan pepper-rimmed cocktails to semi-permanent teeth-staining black beverages.

In a few months, we decided to transform our nomadic setting into an established ‘artist-run bar’. The story we imagined was that of a bar which constitutive (material) features—such as glasses, bar counter, neon sign, logo and live acts—would be designed (and performed) by different artists. By providing a invitation as the structure (the bar and some said elements) which required to be responded to, the aim was to create a common context to generate, showcase (and use) a collection of diverse artefacts by different authors. Each of their voices were singularly recognisable although the visitor was offered to follow the suggested narrative of the bar.

Initially, we had plan to generate contribution at a periodical rhythm. For each iteration of the bar, we would propose different artists to contribute with new series of glasses, bar counter, neon sign, logo, etc. while the images of the preceding ones were archived on our website and the actual items sold in the occasion of an in-house auction event. (Parts of the projects relied on fundings and parts relied on the benefit the bar would generate, some of the aspects never came to realisation and the system, incomplete, did not sustain. A second iteration was never made possible but I consider this project as a crash test with positive lessons on system making.)

In retrospect, I realised how much the documentation of this project had biassed my experience of the process and the overall project. In order to obtain the remaining twenty percent of the funding we were allocated, we were required to provide a formal report stipulating “[our] substantive and financial obligations in [an] accountability form” (stimuleringsfund, accountability).

“1. The governing board shall set a final determination of the subsidy after the project report has been approved.

2. If the activities have been conducted according to the application and have met all of the obligations attached to the subsidy, the governing board will finally determine the subsidy within thirteen weeks in accordance with the decision granting the subsidy.

3. The governing board may extend the period referred to in paragraph 2 by a maximum of six weeks, provided that they notify the applicant in writing.

4. If, in the opinion of the AFK, the achievements of the recipient are less than was determined in the grant decision or if the quality of the completed project or programme does not meet the requirements laid down in the decision, this will be taken into account when finalising the amount of the subsidy. The subsidy will then be fixed at a lower amount, proportional to the lesser performance with respect to the performance for which the subsidy was awarded. The AFK is entitled to immediately recover any unjustified and/or wrongly paid subsidies and advances.” (AFK)

...Does not let room for unforeseen events to be reflected on. Does not encourage to reflect on the “failed aspects” of the process or what could be/have been done differently

…Similarities between examples cited in CB’s essay (Antagonism and relation aesthtics)

1.The bar at Palais de tokyo qualified of “compensatory entertainment”

In her depiction of the bar I definitely recognised parts of this project.

“Another problem is the ease with which the "laboratory" becomes marketable as a space of leisure and entertainment”

“Related to the project-based "laboratory" tendency is the trend toward inviting contemporary artists to design or troubleshoot amenities within the museum, such as the bar (Jorge Pardo at K21, Dusseldorf; Michael Lin at the Palais de Tokyo; Liam Gillick at the Whitechapel Art Gallery) or reading lounge (Apolonia Sustersic at Kunstverein Munich, or the changing "Le Salon" program at the Palais de Tokyo), and in turn present these as works of art.”

One of the issues linked to the dependency that grew towards the owner of the space is that we were required to ‘open the bar’ whenever they were hosting an event, in return for ‘visibility’. But in fact, all we were providing was a horeca service even more precarious.

2.The restaurant project of Tiravanija

“The content of this dialogue is not in itself democratic, since all questions return to the hackneyed nonissue of “is this art?" Despite Tiravanija's rhetoric of open-endedness and viewer emancipation, the structure of his work circumscribes the outcome in advance, and relies on its presence within a gallery to differentiate it from entertainment.

Our initiative, first in its nomadic state then established, was in all of its iterations “infiltrating” spaces/events dedicated to art/where art is presented.

(...I use the term “infiltrating” as it was an easy way to perform in these venues and make a little bit of cash with what was closest to our “art” practice. >>dependency with art institutions)

“it produces a community whose members identify with each other, because they have something in common”

3.The bar of Hirshorn

Tension/questioning between the audience and the space that is made up/restaged by the artist (here link to Bollenpandje)

…Looking back at it 5 years later, I find it interesting and representative of how working as a collective actually works in the ‘back end’. Today I find it interesting to compare the ‘ideal’ version of the bar “microtopian community” we spontaneously triggered to build/ naively/candidly/ingeniously intended to build versus the issues of working collectively we stumbled upon.

—The environments we infiltrated >> “it produces a community whose members identify with each other, because they have something in common”

—Relation of dependency with the space hosting us and conflict leading to aborting the project >> relations more “controversial” and “complicated” than those created by relational aesthetics?

—Relation of dependency with the funding, the report requires to report how close to the plan the project remained as a proof of success (find guideline of the report), check boxes, tension involved with the remaining 20% of the funding,

—Tension between us, the initiators

Conclusion:

—The process is hard to illustrate to the audience of the project/ Today i come to realise that the process is the most valuable part of such projects, under-documented/ not documented at all (When we write a report to the funding, we are still claiming/begging the remaining 20% of the fund and need give a polished version of the report). Not only the documentation of these conflicts is swept under the carpet but our audience doesn’t get to see it because the focus is rather directed towards the outcome.

—It provided a learning space for me and my project partner(s) (both on an individual and collective level) which remains private, some ’disastrous’ aspects of this project would be very insightful for others/audience that are concerned with working collaboratively.

How it ended:

Aggressive email from space owner/curator

One night we went to the space and ripped off our 4x4 meter neon sign from the window as a sign of protest, leaving a permanent ugly mark of silicon.

Bridge to Bollenpandje experience:

—text with Erica we read prior to the presentation to give an account of the situation, to unveil the situation at a particular moment in a particular place, ‘press pause’ and ask the audience to think along with us on these questions we ask ourselves regarding our practice.

(text Bollenpandje)

“Disruptive approach to relations” (CB)

c. Fundamental role of the (open) structure:

...to host content (without "forcing" it into a restrictive format)

...to provide a singular surface (template?) that enables the connection of disparate entries (while preserving plurality, enhancing plurality but finding a pattern in order to connect(?))

...to provide a set of instructions?

d. Purposes of designing "open structures"

...durability/continuation (the open structure is not depending on a specific content to "make sense" and can be easily "emptied" of its content, replaced and iterated)

...flexibility/re-purpose-ability

...decentralisation of the decision making

"The role of the graphic designer sliding towards a role of facilitator"

a. Similarities between graphic design and narration

...Host and curator

...Narration

...The particularity of creating a template is to organise content of disparate nature. To achieve such organisation, the use of certain conditions, elements of structures (such as indents, font variations, and so on.) can serve to establish meaning to the reading, create a code, a subtle pattern to structure the content.

b. From narration to facilitation (in the context of publishing)

...In the case of Live Action Role-Playing (LARP) for example? example: "Sisters of the Wind"?

..."unobtrusive assistance"

...example: "Conditional design"

"Decisions" (decision making as a graphic designer, decision making as a group)

"Narration (/connection of disparate entries)"

"Publishing collections/ collective publishing vs publishing collectively"

1.

While I initially typed and began to work along the terminology ‘collective publishing’, as to delineate the context of this research, I wasn’t quite satisfied with the word ‘publishing’ when used as a noun. It seemed to describe a wide area of practice (‘publishing’) and, adjectivized by the word ‘collective’, it did not really evoke more than a branch of that area (‘collective publishing’).

‘Publishing collectively’ or ‘to publish collectively’, as an alternative, intuitively seemed to locate the scope of my analysis more accurately in the very effort that leads to publishing but yet precedes this “public moment” as an outcome. Through this slight shift of class—from ‘noun’ to ‘verb’—I suggest that we also consider the verb ‘publishing’/the terminology ‘publishing collectively’ as the shared effort that is performed towards “making things public”.

2.

In her thesis titled “Figuring things out together: on the relationship between design and collective practice.”, Anja Groten insists on the importance of “designing with collectivity” as a process preceding any potential outcome. Drawing on her manifold experiences of collective practice, she rather locates its value in the coming together that painstakingly organises to approach or respond to a subject collectively than in the result that is produced: “It [designing with collectivity] is a process, not a method or a goal, in the sense that a participatory design process would follow a goal by involving others, i.e., to improve design processes or outcomes. Designing with collectivity is not about designing better. It is an imaginative as well as concrete material process of being and doing things together differently from how it would be usually done.” (Groten, 2022)

The publication at the end of such process, the “outcome”, collaterally becomes a crystallised version of the relations (1) entailed in a production performed collectively.

(...)

3.

Whereas the initial terminology could lead to a vast interrogation about ‘what collective publishing is’, its alternative—’publishing collectively’—allows us to actually reflect on ‘what publishing collectively does’.

In her text "Performative Materiality and Theoretical Approaches to Interface", Johanna Drucker proposes to extend the understanding of ‘materiality’ by considering its ‘performative dimension’. Departing from Matt Kirschenbaum’s argument “for materiality as essential to the operation and identity of digital media'' she suggests that “what something is has to be understood in terms of what it does, how it works within machinic, systemic, and cultural domains.” (Drucker, 2013)

By applying this approach to understand the inner workings involved in the process of publishing, I intend to begin mapping out the conditions that facilitate production within a collectivity in order to respond to the need of positioning and setting the terms for my own practice of graphic design (in this context of publishing collectively).

(...)

4.

Example: X-Kitchen

-Regular group meetings to discuss and make decisions for the SI

-Desire to provide a tool that support the structure of the meetings in a playful yet constructive way

-Description of the different roles and their set of constraints, the condition of their participation

-Roles are fictitious but based on the observation of real characteristics that are exaggerated

-Script ahead the timeline of the ‘exercise’ (introduction, very guided start, more space for improvisation, ‘goal of this discussion’, closing…)

-Role embodiment worked well, although getting to know the rules/start took a long time and made the process longer/exhausting?

5.

At which point of the process does the decision making belong when involved in publishing collectively?

…Publishing involves designing but sometimes designing can also be a tool for the process of publishing. We primarily think of designing once the content has already been produced, but the design could also be a tool that leads to the production of content or if not its production, its narration, the settlement of the content in a pre-designed container.

6.

Publishing collectively vs. publishing individually, lonely days of post-production

((?not sure if this example will end-up being relevant here)""Since the early nineties, an ever-increasing number of art works have been created on the basis of preexisting works; more and more artists interpret, reproduce, reexhibit, or use works made by others or available cultural products. ... These artists who insert their own work into that of others contribute to the eradication of the traditional distinction between production and consumption, creation and copy, readymade and original work. The material they manipulate is no longer primary" Bourriaud argues that postproduction differs from the ready-made, which questions author- ship and the institution of art, because its emphasis is on recombining existing cultural artifacts in order to imbue them with new meaning."")

7.

…It is especially crucial in publications that are produced collectively that the design decisions emerge from the process that is also responsible for the creation of the content. In such an effort of publishing collectively, the conversation that happens between the members needs to be translated in the final design. The classic role of the (‘external’) designer is irrelevant in such contexts because it is almost a role of ‘post-production’.

Note:

This lexicon will attempt to define the purposes of designing "open systems" and how/why these might be a tool that supports facilitation in the context of collective production. The second definition intends to highlight the similarities observed between the role of the graphic designer and the narrator and how re-purposing the design tools towards facilitation is relevant to collective publishing. The third definition aims at listing the different layers of making decisions as a designer and describing the discomfort of taking decisions individually in the context of a collective work. It will also open on letting go of making choices that are tied to a specific content in favour of designing systems that 'make choices' ahead. The fourth definition serves to contextualise the idea of 'narration' in the context of collective/collection publication but might overlap with the second so will perhaps be discarded. The fifth definition wants to depart from the common etymology of the words 'collection' and 'collective' to describe the idea of a "whole consisting of a plurality of individuals" and link this idea to the position of the designer aspiring facilitator/curator.

ii. Proof of concept (The Piet)

1. Introduce "The Piet", a monthly publication organised by and for student at PZI.

2. Observations & investigation: What is the current organisation? What are its flaws and what makes its charm? What are the different roles involved in the process of this periodical publication? What are the reasons for deciding to work upon such system or what were the events that led to the current organisation?

After a series of interview with persons occupying different roles/ contributing in various ways to the publication of The Piet, I intend in this part to report my observations on the organisation, establish a picture, map out the relationships and the tools in use.

eg. Emma mentioned she had to design a new layout for every issue of the periodical, which is time costly but also prevents from involving others in the process. Although it is enjoyable to offer a new design every time, this could be achieved without having to come up with a new layout every time but perhaps build-up on the previous one, or having a layout that allows elements to be placed differently for every issue, overall considering the idea of continuation and process.

3. Positioning: What are the needs to improve the organisation and decision making in the collective environment? Am I in a position to provide a tool, a system, a service?

a. (eg.) Establishing a single place/stream to share and store contributions

b. (eg.) Making a template that allows multiple people to be involved in the 'design'/publishing process

c. (eg.) Creating documentation/guide of the template to be passed on to future editorial team members with the intention to create autonomy/independence

iii. Methodology (elements to be considered in order to build an open structure)

From the previous chapter, identify methodology.

I don't like the term 'methodology' here as it evokes to me a frame that is imposed so this part will emphasise on "the things to consider" and rather propose a list of ideas, an open protocol to making 'open structures' (term also tbd)