User:Ssstephen/Reading/Modular Matter
https://media.xpub.nl/2023/thesis/modular-matter-Jian_Haake.pdf
[modular matter's] experimental and modular setup may help to break open those long-established habits and lead to unexpected designs and meaningful printed outcome, for example in the form of small posters or even simple publications. Moreover, the counter approach of the tool hopefully sparks questions and critical conversations about the current status quo of this field, initiating essential reflections and re-imaginations of the creative practice and its tool ecologies
I am interested in doing this too but maybe not so much within the practice of ⊞ because I hate it and I want to destroy it. Not really so angry but I at least want to smash it and dissolve it. Jian talks about "translating" the operating modes of sonic modular synthesis to print publishing. The translation part itself I find really interesting as it seems to be the point of connection and a point where definitions can be easily broken.
Each module performs a certain operation
This is an important part of "modular" that I would like to extend. I remember a conversation with a person in a modular shop (in SchneidersLaden in Berlin maybe) where I said I wanted to get a compressor module. They explained that an amp module and some other small function modules would be a better idea. This blew my mind that modules could be even smaller and sharper than I expected. Is there a difference between the division of labour for machines and for humans, if so why? It is about not treating humans as modules that can be exploited. It is about letting a human be so much more than a task that they perform, a discipline they are trained in. It is about making a tool useful and productive. What happens if tools are modular but not small and sharp? Or humans? Is it possible for full and complex humans to still be open and modular? Where does a module end and a where does an instrument begin? Where does one instrument end and where does a band begin? Where is that sound coming from?
I need to add modular synth things to my reading list. Something from Dieter Döpfers https://doepfer.de/home_e.htm Something mmmm I have a list somewhere I dunno. read deverahi again. I more want things about the philosophy of modular in general.
Thinking about translating these modules (or the idea of them) to HPGL: some functions could be interesting at different points and thus stay modular. For example a module that adds header and footer data to SCale or ROtate the content coming into it. Pseudocode that I think makes sense in HPGL:
SC(new scaling factors)
inputcode
SC(remove the scaling effect
RO(new scaling factors)
inputcode
RO(remove the scaling effect
I 'thiiiiink' maybe these effects could be applied in different orders, repeatedly, at different points of the process, to get different results? Not sure. Would have to try it to find out. Added to the prototyping list. As in the module is a function in the programming sense of the word.
This comes with the risk of inaccessibility and could make the tool less approachable for some readers
I appreciate this concern. I also wonder how necessary it is, there are probably very particular people who would be interested in this in the first place. But it is very caring thanks Jian <3 Combining technical and personal modes of address appeals to me also, and maybe explanations of why such a tool exists but I think she is probably going to include these too. Oh yeah the next paragraph explains that, or more specifically that she will be explaining the tool's context.
I am trying to consciously reflect on my own tool ecologies.
yus me too.
I need to read more about specialization and disciplines.
Before the Digital Era, typesetting and composition used to be very hands-on, manual operations that were directly connected to the printing process. Nowadays, the act of making the book (and printed matter in general) is in large part digital.
What is lost in the transition from manual to digital labour? The palms, lifelines, the back of the hand, scale. no hands ten fingers. Where will this rabbithole go https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-10-fundamentals-of-re_b_9625926 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_imagery http://piano-jazz.blogspot.com/p/water-pianism.html I'll try to focus on Jian's pdf but this is distracting.
goes a bit strange
You want to get to a point where you're playing as a spectator, you're not the one pulling the string
From danthecomposer. One part of me wants to complete the original task but one part of me wants to follow the flow, it is conflicting.
By mental preparation, it is meant that one unlearns what is thought to be known and understood, recognising that any preconceived ideas about playing the piano, especially about what is considered ‘beginner’ level and ‘advanced’ level, are an illusion. It may be said that in order to enjoy some fresh water, the glass must first be emptied of its former contents.
Change is mostly limited to those situations in which the brain is in the mood for it.
You only need a piano to hear the results of what has taken place in the mind
Not a lot of ability or responsability given to the tool in this theory. The more something is practiced, the more connections are changed.
You become a spectator.
This is presented as the end goal, kinda weird.
Yet, even without a complete set of pens, the sharpest chisel or the finest brush, in mind, the true writer always has a story to tell, the true sculptor a scene to carve and the true artist a landscape to paint.
mmmmmmm ateriality though. The role or potential role of motor imagery in imaginative practice. What if I start thinking (closely, motorically) about a practice I have. Then I imagine (still just thinking!) alternative things happening in that situation to the usual practice.
Think about the process of sending an email. Really think about it in detail. You take out your laptop and place it on the table. You hinge it open and the screen automatically switches on. You log in, or maybe you dont need to. You locate your browser or email client. Picture the button you press to create a new mail, if you press a button. Imagine moving your fingers across the trackpad to click it. Or pressing down on the keys for a keyboard shortcut. You type the subject of the email, "TRANSCEND". You move to the recipient input field, maybe by moving your fingers over the trackpad and clicking, maybe with a keyboard shortcut again. You are going to send it to your close friend, AIWASS, so you type his email address AIWASS@boleskine.co.uk. Your fingers seep through the keyboard and walls of the house. You enter the house from several directions, up through the floorboards, through the tab key, but primarily through the bow window to the north. There is a blind person playing guitar. There is a green fire above their head. You enter the fire and when you emerge you are the guitar and you are the tab key and you are the at-sign. You blink and forget. You press send. You close the laptop by physically shutting the lid.
This could maybe be used in less imaginative ways that are closer to reality as it seems, or reality as you want it to be. Actually maybe that is more rather than less imaginative, takes more work to stay closer to lived/perceived/actual experience in this case.
Ok back to Jian's thing
The actual materialization, the emergence of printed matter, is often not even part of the designer’s process.
This is an interesting point, and I wonder how it relates to my practice. Does it really have to print out onto paper? I like making things for print but I make things for screen at least as often. So the strange connections I'm making should maybe connect to screen as well, in the coming months. A lot of what I make is published to the web. Or becomes a music or theatre performance. Take existing inputs, functions and outputs, and pull all the wires out and make a new patch.
the conditions and implications that come with the digital workflow and tools are often overlooked or even concealed
I would also like to reveal these conditions and implications. And in a Geertzian way see the potential
to affirm it, defend it, celebrate it, justify it and just plain bask in it
And also to question, destroy, highlight, protest against. Being entangled in corporate environments (hellscapes?) does not mean I have to be happy about it, or go quietly.
For reading list: Awkward gestures: designing with Free Software, Snelting.
Dependency on proprietary tools is not problematized enough in the creative field and can expedite instrumentalization and a lack of agency.
I'm not sure what she means by instrumentalisation in this context but I suspect it is related to my own concerns above about the tooling of practitioners.
They shape the world, which is why they must not be ignored nor underestimated, but rather be used and built with care and consciousness.
<3
Do I want to make tools that are actually useful alternatives to the mainstream, or do I want to make art that looks like tools to highlight the issue?
Far too often efficiency and productivity are prioritized over creativity and out of the box thinking. Similar
Why be creative? Why think outside the box?
the beauty and potential of the outskirts.
Oh yeah that's a great reason.
All design options are predefined by the applications, and even though they may seem to offer endless possibilities and combinations, in the end they shape and limit what is (im)possible. ☻
These interfaces have become so embedded in our conception of reality that we now have a crisis of the imagination, where it is difficult to even think of anything different.” (Howell and Pogorzhelskiy, no date)
Quoted by Haake from The Screenless Office website, Brendan Howell.
The possibilities of the tool are what is considered possible, and the tool’s limitations define the boundaries of what can be envisioned.
Is the solution to this to have, or simply to imagine, other tools? Are there other solutions? Use the wrong tool? Hold it the wrong way? How can you hold InDesign the wrong way?
OSP references, to do talk to them more.
Matt Ratto ... envisions critical making as a combination of “two typically disconnected mode of engagement in the world”, namely critical thinking and making.
Connecting.
For reading list: Matt Ratto, Ratto, M. and Hockema, S. (2009) ‘FLWR PWR: Tending the walled garden’, in Dekker, A. and Wolfsberger, A. (eds.) Walled Garden. Amsterdam: Virtueel Platform. Garnet Hertz. What is Critical Making?’, Current, 18 April 2016. Available at: https://current.ecuad.ca/what-is-critical-making
She presents three methods for escaping proprietary software as designers: hacking, floss alternatives, make your own tools.
However, it is not only possible, but sometimes even easier than expected to get used to other tools.
Sometimes, but I think it's important to note that its hard too. And I will try to describe that honestly as I do it.
Alternative tools, with all their idiosyncrasies and characteristics, have the potential to produce and shape more relatable, unusual and interesting outcome.
Yes, this is not always why someone uses InDesign though.
The [DIY] tool can be unconventional, playful and fun and is freed from necessities that go beyond personal demands. The poetic and vernacular qualities outweigh practicalities and economic interests. A small, intimate gesture may prevail over a grand universal solution.
experiment with clumsy and crooked DIY tools that help to slow down and unfamiliarize the workflow
Finding new ways to interrupt engrained habits of graphic designers is a gesture towards a more critical practice. A practice that is not only being shaped by proprietary tools, but instead one that re-evaluates and actively shapes graphic design tools and how they are being used
I have a similar motivation although I am not so interested in the tool as the locus of change. It's about being a water pianist. Its about ⊞ being a field involving more than one person. Its about interpersonal human structures and the boundaries and ports within them. And dissolving in different places in different unfamiliar ways.
Stopped on page 15 after this is more technical so I will read as I build tomorrow.