Critical By Design? Potentials and Limitations of Materialized Critique

2018

Field of work: Design, Research, Coordination, Moderation
Concept: Moritz Greiner-Petter and me on behalf of m—d—buero
Coding: Moritz Greiner-Petter
Commissioner: IXDM Institute of Experimental Design and Media Cultures

‘Critical By Design?’ is an interdisciplinary research conference on the capacity of design as a mode of critique. International experts from design theory, history and practice, the philosophy of technology, the art, cultural and media studies as well as the field of human-computer interaction discuss the ambivalent relationship of design and criticality and offer theoretical and practice-oriented approaches for an understanding of the potentials and limitations of design as a materialized form of critique. Moritz Greiner-Petter and me on behalf of m—d—buero developed the visual identitiy of the conference. Idea is to question the term ‘criticality’ by replacing the title of the conference with common used terms in the critical design discourse. Besides the design work, I was also part of the conference team and was involved as researcher, coordinator and moderator.

The conference was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) and held as part of the research project “Critical Artifacts – Speculative and Critical Design as a reflective approach towards the design of technology”

poster.jpg

‘Critical By Design?’ Poster

ezgif.com-video-to-gif-1-2.gif
ezgif.com-video-to-gif-1.gif

Festival program and badges. Videos done by Moritz Greiner-Petter

webpage01.jpg
webpage02.jpg
webpage03.jpg
webpages04.jpg

‘Critical By Design?’ Webpage

On and of the grid. Hackers & Designers Publication

2018

Field of work: Writing
Commissioner: Hackers & Designers Amsterdam

I got asked to write a reflection about my participation at H&D Summer Academy 2017 in Amsterdam. The first part of the contribution is a collaboratively written reflection by m—d—buero. The second part is a follow-up reflection about my research in relation to the project RIBL, which was developed in the framework of H&D Summer Academy.

04.jpg

Contribution by m—d—buero (Daniela Rota and Meike Hardt)

We understand design not only as material and visual outcomes, but as scripts, conditions, methods, and processes in which the materiality or visuality is imbued. Therefore, questioning the role of technology where certain orders and mechanisms are inscribed are important. We found Sarah Garcin's design approach interesting because she encouraged designers, artists, and programmers to design their own tools.

Unfortunately, we missed Garcin’s Publishing Machines Workshop but we were able to see her project PJ Machine, a life publishing box, at the H&D Summer Academy's final exhibition. Garcin makes critical standpoints in design processes by designing and modifying her own tools. By doing so, she furthers her own design capabilities and questions and learns about the nature and strengths of design tools. Furthermore, Garcin’s project is open source. The open source movement provides the opportunity for distributed, shared, and diverse approaches to design. The open source movement let's design be a critique to conditions that are influenced by and dependent on the current monopoly of design tools.

Retracing Garcin's approach in our understanding of technology, we believe that the conditions that design projects are based on are already filled with a certain kind of knowledge and presets. These presets influence how we design and how design, economics, and living environments are connected. In this sense, the practice of design consists of not only making a design, such as products, services, questions, knowledge, narration etc., but also about designing designing. That means, designing the conditions and technology we used to produce our design.

It is always a challenge to find the right balance between self-initiated and commissioned, paid, and unpaid projects in our practice. As well, finding the time and space for critical reflection. Our goal with taking part in the H&D Summer Academy was to come up with a small collaborative project. We were aware that the structure of the H&D Summer Academy would not leave a lot of time to develop a project in addition to the workshops and assignments. We were lucky to meet two other participants, Lucia Kolesarova, a designer from Prague, and Dorian de Rijk, an artist from Amsterdam, who were energized and motivated in the same way, though. We received great support from Dennis de Bel, a coder from Rotterdam and the workshop leader of Edible Computing. Together, the five of us founded the Research Institute for Botanical Linguistics (RIBL). Its basic goal is to gain knowledge and a better understanding from botanical living systems through hacking activities. The Institute's concern is to investigate to what extent plants communicate with each other. How do they shape and maintain their own communities and collaborative activities? What conclusions can we draw from these botanical investigations for our human coexistence?

During the H&D Summer Academy, our project became an ironic performative installation with a serious research vision. We tried to hack a tomato plant by receiving signals via sound waves. We connected that data via a Python program with bitmap pictures in order to visualize the plant's response. We organized a photoshoot where we documented our hacking activities, published a RIBL webpage, and designed our RIBL uniforms for our exhibition appearance (see pictures below).

This state of making and performing was both a moment of learning through hand-ons methods and for sharing a statement. We were simultaneously inhabiting the role of Institute researchers and founders, collectively negotiating our identity, and experiencing the limits of staging the hacking analysis of the botanical landscape.

Furthermore, the production was dependent on a limited timeframe. Basically, there was only a small amount of time to organize the distribution of tasks, to make decisions, and to question what we were actually doing. This is not always an advantage, but in this situation it forced us to make more and analyze less. The time pressure helped us to found RIBL. By simply claiming to be an Institute, the momentary performative installation became real. In this spirit, we continue with regular Institute meetings in order to further develop the project.

Working in a cross-disciplinary environment, such as the H&D Summer Academy and the Research Institute for Botanical Linguistics, can be seen as a critical mode of working. It is always about the negotiation of disciplinary differences. You push your own disciplinary borders by unlearning habits to make space for the other. We feel that this unlearning is what made the foundation of RIBL fruitful. Not only because of our different professional and cultural backgrounds, but by its goal of borrowing knowledge from botanical living systems and applying it to the collaborative mode of production of RIBL.

A follow-up reflection by Meike Hardt (Part of m—d—buero)

I would like to follow up on this thought of ethnographic learning by botanical landscapes and connect it briefly to my personal research. My research is concerned with the modalities and limitations of a critical design practice against the mechanisms of precarity in the creative and cultural industries.

The structure of contemporary cultural and creative industries in Western countries is comprised of numerous small businesses. These are an assemblage of project institutions that are characterized by volatile, project-based, and short-term activities. This leads to an increased exposure to unsafe working and living conditions.
Long-term and stabilized working conditions have lost priority in the context of neoliberal deregulation and forced flexibility. Austerity measures, cutbacks, and extremely low wages in the cultural and public services sectors wages are now common. As theorist Isabel Lorey claims in her book State of Insecurity, working conditions connected to these processes are characterized by uncertainty, self-enforced individualization, and the merging of work and leisure [1].

For my research, I borrow the term Design Labour coined by Selçuk Balamir [2]. In his view, design practice consists of three elements: Design Labour, Design Artefact, and Design Knowledge. His theory focuses mainly on the product design discipline, but I believe his thoughts are relevant for each creative discipline.

With the term Design Labour, he describes a structural precondition in which the design practice is based. He shifts the focus of design objects to work processes and their value forms. With this perspective, it is possible to better understand the political economy and social dimension of design. In addition, it helps stretch the current critical design discourse with the labor of design, which is hardly considered.

Critical design methods demonstrate an emancipatory potential against precarious working conditions. At the same time, they show how the relationship between design and critique remain ambiguous. Design can be understood as critical by questioning the status quo and setting up new relationships between humans and non-humans with artefacts, knowledge, visualities, and structures. Designs still sustains normativity by stabilizing its appearances, though. Simultaneously, critical strategies get easily taken over by capitalist mechanism and neutralized, as we have already learned from ideologies and countercultural practices from the years around 1968. When looking for alternatives for designing Design Labour, the ambivalent situation of critique needs to be considered. Furthermore, critique understood as resisting and negating the status quo might run into danger of getting stuck in negativism. Therefore, the critical potential may remain limited and an affirmative form of critique is needed instead.

Appreciating the unstable status quo of working and combining it with imagination as a mode of critical practice is one part of my research. American anthropologist Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing represents this kind of approach by learning about Matsutake mushrooms to reopen our imaginations in her 2015 text The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins, State of Insecurity [3].

Matsutake mushrooms are based on a strong survival system and tend to appear at destroyed places, such as sites of human deforestation. Tsing claims that only by leaving the era of predicted process and growth, as propagated by the modernized world of the 20th century, and by accepting the unpredictable future forced by instability, might we be able to understand the diversity of life and temporalities on earth. With this realization, we may be able to act beyond capitalist mechanisms.

Looking to the Matsutake mushroom system inspires scenarios of coexistence and collaborative survival within unstable economic (e.g. Design Labour) and living conditions. In addition, learning from other-than-human-societies is an attempt to rethink human-led design approaches. In human-centered design, we involve only the human perspective. Yet, new relations to the natural world and hybrid forms of designing and thinking are calling these binary understandings between humans and non-humans into question. Human-centered approaches tend to result only in short-term band-aids for one species and profit-driven systems, rather than generative solutions for heterogenous living systems. I am dedicated to exploring the latter.

  1. Lorey, I. (2015). State of insecurity. London: Verso.
  2. Balamir, S. (2018). Commoning in postcapitalist design practices. In XVI Biennial IASC Conference Practicing the Commons. Utrecht, The Netherlands. https://www.iasc2017.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/9H_Selcuk-Balamir.pdf
  3. Tsing, A. (2015). The Mushroom at the end of the world. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

RIBL Research Institute of Botanical Linguistics

2017 — ongoing

Field of work: Design, Research, Performance
Concept: Lucia Kolesarova, Dorian de Rijk, Daniela Rota and me

Framework

RIBL Research Institute for Botanical Linguistics was founded in the framework of HDSA in 2017 by designer Lucia Kolesarova from Prague, artist Dorian de Rijk from Amsterdam, designer Daniela Rota and designer and researcher Meike Hardt, both based in Zurich. RIBL’s concern is to explore interdependencies between humans and non-humans. Our goal is to question human-centered knowledge production, normalisation processes and truth making in relation to design and art practice. Thinking of design and art practice as integrally part of world making and establishing normalisation processes, a pluralistic consideration of the world is necessary. Therefore the institutes basic intention is to shift the human perspective and to get connected with, to think with and to use botanical systems as a point of references for human beliefs and truth making. We are interested in non-human systems, interaction and ways of communication that gives access to more-than-human perspectives. Our practice within RIBL Institute consists of sharing and organizing settings, events, gatherings that uses hand-on methods, design, discussions and performance in a playful and ironic manner for aiming at exploration, speculation and research.

Part one — Building an institute, from fake to non-fake

This two days project started as an ironic performative installation: A tomato plant got hacked by receiving signals via sound waves. Those datas got connected via a Python program with bitmap pictures in order to visualize the plant's response. A photoshoot was organized in order to document the hacking activities, a webpage was published and we designed RIBL uniforms for the exhibition. This state of making and performing was both a moment of learning through making and sharing a statement. We were simultaneously inhabiting the role of Institute researchers and founders, collectively negotiating our identity, and experiencing the limits of staging the hacking analysis of the botanical landscape. This was the founding momentum of RIBL.

1.jpg
2.jpg
3.jpg
4.jpg
5.jpg
6.jpg
7.jpg

Part two — RIBL Dinner (MORE IS COMING SOON)

From which perspective are we building our world? From which perspective do we make up believes and normativities? – All too human? [1] While eating plants we are going to question knowledge production and truth making that is “all too human”. What can we learn from other-than-human-systems? How can we communicate with and think “with” botanicals and use botanical system as a point of references for reflecting human beliefs and truth making? In a performative way we use the dinner as a quick collective think thank and experimentation to investigate ways to think “with” and to communicate with plants. We will discuss the need of pluralistic ways of knowledge production and move on to investigate ways of including the non-human as attendant of the dinner. The outcome of the dinner will be well-fed participants, discussions, dancing, small experiments in forms of notes, sketches, prototypes or performative answer and/or whatever feels right.

  1. We borrow the expression: „All too human“ of one of Rosi Braidotti´s lecture title: Posthuman, All Too Human Rosi Braidotti (2017, May) Posthuman, All Too Human. Lecture given at Durham University as part of the Durham Castle Lectures Series 2016/17

FDRG Feminist Design Reading Group

2017 – ongoing

MORE IS COMING SOON

Future as Present. A capitalistic poetry

2016

Field of work: Design, Art
Concept: Marcel Goethals and Meike Hardt
Coding: Marcel Goethals

Future as Present is a project that experiments with speculation in relation to economy and poetry. Two computational traders are speculating about word values and selling them to each other. Within this microeconomic system, the Communist Manifesto was re-written as a capitalist poetry. This installation was exhibited in the framework of Hackers & Designers Summer Academy in 2016 in Amsterdam and was a collaboration with Marcel Goethals. Currently, we are working on a further elaborated bot which process the capitalist poetry in a publication.

fap.jpg
fapzwei.jpg

F.R.E.E. Foundation for Research Emancopartoy Economics

2016

Field of work: Design, Research
Concept: Benjamin Bush and me

An installation with questionnaires about precarious working conditions. F.R.E.E. is the superordinate framework of my current research project 
with the provisory title: Designing design(ing) — The potential and limits of „common“ as a practice in postcapitalist design cultures. Project was shown at a Groupexhibition at Kunstverein Rosa–Luxemburg–Platz in Berlin. F.R.E.E. is a collaboration with Benjamin Bush in the framework of Saas-Fee Summer Institute of Art in Berlin.

img_0428.jpg
img_0431.jpg
img_0429.jpg

Big Data Conference Report

2015

WALL HOUSE Making and Remaking

2012

Field of work: Editorial Design

Art Direction for a postcard catalogue representing the project WALL HOUSE Making and Remaking by Anupama Kundoo shown at the Architecture Biennale in Venice 2012

130504_0341.jpg
130504_0283.jpg
130504_0289.jpg
130504_0316.jpg

Berlin Milano Catalogue

2011

1.jpg
2.jpg
3.jpg
4.jpg
5.jpg

DMY International Design Festival Catalogue

2011

Field of work: Editorial Design
Commissioner: DMY International Design Festival Berlin

1.jpg
2.jpg
3.jpg
4.jpg
5.jpg
6.jpg

Announcement DMY Awards Jury Selection

2011

funef.jpg
sechs.jpg
zwei.jpg

Field of work: Design
Commissioner: International Design Festival Berlin