Long-term relations
Relation, flow, dialogue, connectivity, emergence, network, becoming.
These terms seem to be the buzzwords in the current vocabulary of
design.
These terms all come from the scientific fields of physics, chemistry,
biology, mathematics and their sub-fields such as complexity, chaos,
neurology etc; fields that try to understand the nature of life. The
revelation of relativity and non-linearity provided scientists with a
different understanding of the world. It showed that everything is
connected dynamically in all respects, at all times and on all levels,
whilst constantly developing. It has taken them a long time to not only
discover but, more importantly, to understand and acknowledge the values
of this paradigm shift. This is due to the fact that the attributes
that come with it - emergent properties, instability, unpredictability
etc.- are difficult to comprehend and even more difficult to work with.
In fact, it requires a completely different way of working. Scientists
understood that but were reluctant to employ it, mainly because they
were not supported by their institutions and the economy. The
relational sciences have remained unpopular for the very reason that
their purpose lies not necessarily in fostering short-term
success/profit.
Design has always celebrated its advantage of working
‘across-boundaries’ as it likes to call it. It doesn’t like to be
pinned down and enjoys the freedom with which it can roam foreign
territories and appropriate ideas for its use. But rarely have
designers really understood the original/wider contexts from which
ideas emerged. Instead, terminology has been adopted carelessly and
randomly without investigating into appropriate use and without
understanding that these terms might not only be concepts for designers
to exploit, but that these concepts might require something from
design. And by failing to understand this, design ruled out the
potential that lies in the ideas.
I’m not saying that there can’t be a certain liberty, even liberation,
in the translation of terms to other practices. Often it’s the
awkwardness that has a charm and a new reading that leads highly
specific terms, cornered into dead-end alleys, to new potential; but I
doubt that this is what is happening here. Design has adopted a
terminology without understanding its implication. While the sciences
understood that they were facing a shift in paradigm that required a
set of new tools and in fact demanded a different purpose, design as a
profession does not seem to be aware of any of this, nor interested. It
still works as self-referential, specific and technology-awed as it
always has. Design students are still taught to look at their work in
relation to other design work/periods and not to see the wider contexts
outside of their own profession. By that, their work is the exact
opposite of what it (cl)aims to be. It is inherently unrelational - to
the context in which it will later come to life. Students are not
encouraged to ask: What do these terms mean? What do they mean for us?
Where are we in this complexity we are talking about? How do we situate
ourselves? What are the contexts in which we operate? What does this
require from us? Who are we designing for? What is the long-term
potential in this? What are our strengths as designers? How can we
help? What are our tools?
These questions aren’t new, Buckminster Fuller asked them, and
masterfully proposed answers/tools, almost a century ago. So how come
designers are not posing them in their approach to their work?
Designers have an advantage over scientists, in that they have unlocked
themselves from their tradition of specialisation. While scientists
still work in their respective niches, blocking themselves by not
sharing insights or research grants, designers can use their position -
that is slightly outside of everything - to understand overall relations
and then act locally, situated, like agents. By that, they might
actually produce valuable work. They might help give people
a sense of orientation in the unstable complexity and be consulted in
diverse, ambitious, long-term projects where holistic thinking is
needed. But designers don’t seem to be interested in this, for they
continue to apply a terminology of relations to meaningless, isolated
work. The potential that lies in it will remain unlocked, because they
are not prepared to engage with this thought. Or, as physicist David
Bohm said, “If I am right in saying that thought is the ultimate origin
or source, it follows that if we don’t do anything about thought, we
won’t get anywhere.” (Changing Consciousness, p25)
Hi Adriana,
First of all, I do agree with a lot of what your mention in your statement. A few words on your thoughts though: Apart from the difference – and equal importance – of the two ways of looking at graphic design – as a service and as a field of exploration itself – which I will not go into right now, I want to recycle – as it is recommended by the hosts of this blog – some of your statements and put your ‘context’ into the following.
—‘Design students are still taught to look at their work in relation to other design work/periods and not to see the wider contexts outside of their own profession. By that, their work is the exact opposite of what it (cl)aims to be.’
I think there are two possible interpretations of ‘context’ that you are referring to. The first one is the context of the experiment. It is to find out whether a theory works out on a particular set of given criteria. It is to question and to strengthen a hypothesis. The second one is the context of exploration, where a certain process is being developed without an obvious reason at hand. Both – experiment and exploration – are important ‘tools’ to graphic design, although sometimes sloppily employed where the ‘pseudo-contextualisation’ becomes a justified complaint. However it is sometimes necessary to start via an exploration and formulate a hypothesis which to strengthen you will develop experiments for. For this procedure it is not always a mistake to know what is around and to be aware of what has been done already in the field. This might be important whether you are doing yet another ID to develop ‘a unique image’ for a company, or typeset a dictionary, where you better do your research before tackling such a complex task. To stop there is, as you rightly mention, not advisable. Once you got to know your own discipline, there is constant evolution while you feed and feed off other disciplines, be it dance and choreography ; ), architecture, nature, science, etc.
This is just a thought on how to excuse a certain self-referential attitude within graphic design. If used appropriately (ie as a research tool, and this is what we try to get into the heads of our students) it can be most valuable. If it is what you compare your outcomes with exclusively, you will turn around in circles (what I feel a lot of fashion designers do these days – not that I have an idea what is going on).
—‘Students are not encouraged to ask: What do these terms mean? What do they mean for us? Where are we . . .’
This is a tricky one, since you already have a certain self-reference in the structure of your questions: ‘What do these terms mean for us?’ and ‘Where are we in this complexity that we are talking about?’ are highly self-referential, but still not a bad starting point of further proceedings. You always have to start somewhere and if you try to understand a specific term – be it from science, or from art – you will always start with those questions that you feel slightly more experienced with. This will eventually lead to other ones and so on. To doom all self-reference is not helpful either – I know you are not doing this, but I felt to state this point of view here too.
/Paulus M Dreibholz 30/09/2005