User:Ssstephen/thesisoutline: Difference between revisions
(→⊞) |
No edit summary |
||
| (18 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===⊞=== | ===title: ⊞=== | ||
====abstract==== | |||
This document is a collection of fragments where I explore belief systems about labour in the "creative industries" in particular graphic design. I will focus on how these beliefs exist and function from ethnographic lenses including culturally and politically, spiritually and 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. | |||
I document some direct examinations of these activities, in my own work and that of select others, in both practices considered "traditional" and those claiming to be more experimental orattempting to escape or overcome tradition. The writing dissolves and reintegrates. The text is about the discipline of graphic design and its 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 ethnographic documentation, reflection, academic reference and positioning, description of new connections we are 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 am working 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==== | ====terminology==== | ||
| Line 11: | Line 17: | ||
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. | 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. | ||
====abstract-er==== | |||
… 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 . 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 ? 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 ? 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 ? 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 … | |||
==== | ====chapter one: what is a ⊞er and what is the act of ⊞?==== | ||
Modes of address: reflexive mode, contextual, multiple lenses, rage, frustration, smashing. | |||
What compartments and boundaries exist that define ⊞, 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 "⊞er as brander", "⊞er as salesperson" (Pater, 2021) but instead "⊞er sitting at the machine, thinking" (Brodine, 1990) or "⊞er without qualities" (Musil, 1930). The fragments in this chapter will be situated and subjective rather than "objective", they are outside of categories because the categories are broken anyway. What activities are involved in ⊞ (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 ⊞? | |||
====chapter two: what can a ⊞er 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. | |||
''The first chapter is driven by rage and frustration and a desire to destroy and while this is important to me I would also like to spend my time dreaming and dancing.'' | |||
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? | 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, in chapter one in the sense of revealing but here in the sense of "pulling up the fences that now surround the commons" (Federici, 2018). Where else can these categories be opened and shattered and bridged and dissolved? 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, for example in the work of David F Noble. I hope I can find ways to bridge or break or seep through the walls. | ||
==== | ====chapter three: it's definitely working, but not in a good way ==== | ||
Modes of address: pessimism, lethargy, despair. | 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? | 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? Is it possible to hold a straight face and ask the question "How to be a graphic ⊞er without losing your soul?" (Shaughnessy, 2005). | ||
<blockquote>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. | <blockquote>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. | ||
| Line 60: | Line 64: | ||
Berlant, Lauren Gail. Cruel Optimism. Duke University Press, 2011. | Berlant, Lauren Gail. Cruel Optimism. Duke University Press, 2011. | ||
Brodine, Karen. Woman Sitting at the Machine, Thinking: Poems. 1st ed, Red Letter Press, 1990. | |||
Carroll, Lewis. Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There. Macmillan, 1871. | Carroll, Lewis. Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There. Macmillan, 1871. | ||
Federici, Silvia. Witches, Witch-Hunting, and Women. PM Press, 2018. | |||
Mould, Oliver. Against Creativity. Verso, 2018. | Mould, Oliver. Against Creativity. Verso, 2018. | ||
Musil, Robert. The Man without Qualities / Robert Musil. 2. 1. Vintage Internat. ed, Vintage Internat, 1930. | |||
Pater, Ruben. Caps Lock: How Capitalism Took Hold of Graphic ⊞ and How to Escape from It. Valiz, 2021. | |||
Shaughnessy, Adrian. How to Be a Graphic ⊞er, without Losing Your Soul. Princeton Architectural Press, 2005. | |||
Thomson AK, Fritsch K and O’Connor C. Keywords for Radicals. 1st edition, AK Press, 2016. | Thomson AK, Fritsch K and O’Connor C. Keywords for Radicals. 1st edition, AK Press, 2016. | ||
Latest revision as of 17:41, 18 January 2024
title: ⊞
abstract
This document is a collection of fragments where I explore belief systems about labour in the "creative industries" in particular graphic design. I will focus on how these beliefs exist and function from ethnographic lenses including culturally and politically, spiritually and 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.
I document some direct examinations of these activities, in my own work and that of select others, in both practices considered "traditional" and those claiming to be more experimental orattempting to escape or overcome tradition. The writing dissolves and reintegrates. The text is about the discipline of graphic design and its 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 ethnographic documentation, reflection, academic reference and positioning, description of new connections we are 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 am working 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.
abstract-er
… 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 . 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 ? 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 ? 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 ? 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 …
chapter one: what is a ⊞er and what is the act of ⊞?
Modes of address: reflexive mode, contextual, multiple lenses, rage, frustration, smashing.
What compartments and boundaries exist that define ⊞, 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 "⊞er as brander", "⊞er as salesperson" (Pater, 2021) but instead "⊞er sitting at the machine, thinking" (Brodine, 1990) or "⊞er without qualities" (Musil, 1930). The fragments in this chapter will be situated and subjective rather than "objective", they are outside of categories because the categories are broken anyway. What activities are involved in ⊞ (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 ⊞?
chapter two: what can a ⊞er 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.
The first chapter is driven by rage and frustration and a desire to destroy and while this is important to me I would also like to spend my time dreaming and dancing.
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, in chapter one in the sense of revealing but here in the sense of "pulling up the fences that now surround the commons" (Federici, 2018). Where else can these categories be opened and shattered and bridged and dissolved? 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, for example in the work of David F Noble. I hope I can find ways to bridge or break or seep through the walls.
chapter three: 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? Is it possible to hold a straight face and ask the question "How to be a graphic ⊞er without losing your soul?" (Shaughnessy, 2005).
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.
Brodine, Karen. Woman Sitting at the Machine, Thinking: Poems. 1st ed, Red Letter Press, 1990.
Carroll, Lewis. Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There. Macmillan, 1871.
Federici, Silvia. Witches, Witch-Hunting, and Women. PM Press, 2018.
Mould, Oliver. Against Creativity. Verso, 2018.
Musil, Robert. The Man without Qualities / Robert Musil. 2. 1. Vintage Internat. ed, Vintage Internat, 1930.
Pater, Ruben. Caps Lock: How Capitalism Took Hold of Graphic ⊞ and How to Escape from It. Valiz, 2021.
Shaughnessy, Adrian. How to Be a Graphic ⊞er, without Losing Your Soul. Princeton Architectural Press, 2005.
Thomson AK, Fritsch K and O’Connor C. Keywords for Radicals. 1st edition, AK Press, 2016.