#discourseindesign

The text called Into the Meme Pool by James Gleick was an interesting follow-up to the texts of the first reading package, which discussed authorship and the authenticity of information contributing to an individual’s authority. This text (Into the Meme Pool) discussed how information and our sense of knowledge is always a replication of something prior and can never purely be original. These replications or interpretations Gleick calls memes. Memes, he says, are complex constructs that we as viewers, listeners or interpreters have created. In other words, we could define memes as interpretations of the original source, whether that is a painting, song, novel, sculpture or a statement. The question he posed was: “Who’s in charge, we or our memes?” pointing out that our own sense of truth might be perceived differently depending on how others tell the story. As memes have “a life of their own, independent of any physical reality”, it is impossible to control memes and thus, quite scary considering the power they hold within.

The text called Man in the Middle by C. Wright Mills, similarly as to the first, states that the information we receive is always a documentation of the original source. Even though it might be the actual original work we are seeing or hearing, there are interpretations projected onto these that shape our perception and understanding of it. Mills says that these originals are given to us by witnesses and that if we ever wanted to experience a sense of truth or originality the closest experience we would get as infants or when we our insane. He brings up the concept and term “cultural apparatus” that he says are interpreting and presenting us with these different perspectives of the information and knowledge. Thus, the cultural apparatus is necessary for us to get access to information in the first place. However, we become depend on the information the cultural apparatus provides us with. The role that designers have in terms of the cultural apparatus he showcases in the examples of how the cultural apparatus has developed in the USA. There, he says, as the cultural apparatus has increasingly been commercialized, the role of the designer has evolved from the ‘pure’ craftmanship’ and the intrinsic joy of crafting and designing to the need to craft and design in order to produce for the sake of sales and revenue. And as he goes on to say that society has become a sales room itself, it is increasingly important for designers to be aware in what way they can have an impact and in what way they are influenced by their immediate surrounding. Saying this, Mills says that to craft and design authentically, the designer must be practicing design themselves. Therefore, merely buying or financing artists or designers, one is not possessive of the art itself. Instead, in order to ‘possess’ art, one must in some way be participating in the process of its creation.

The last text by Johanna Drucker showed the institutionalization and standardization of visual material as sources of information. From this point of view, Drucker critically discussed the credibility of visual material as reliable or unreliable sources of knowledge and information. She states that human knowledge has far exceeded the capacity that visual imagery could possibly describe, and present, and thus visual material demonstrates limitations. However, with its limits it also enables the explanation of information and knowledge, as it tends to simplify and therefore, maintain a big picture, whilst leaving detailed information to other forms or representation, such as literature. Thanks to standardizations, visual imagery has been able establish a form of knowledge itself and become part of institutions as forms of academic subjects.

Introduction, Reading II (Design and Knowledge) by Suvi, 30 Sept 2019.

The title is a slight modification of the famous quote “with great power comes great responsibility”, since knowledge is tightly connected to power. After reading these texts by Johanna Drucker, C. W. Mills and James Gleick I recognize that connection even better. Knowledge as an idea (and as a goal) has fascinated me for as long as I can remember. It can provide a ticket to success, but also enable a possibility to make terrible mistakes.  

Visual presentations possess also a great power. Sharing information and transmitting knowledge through images have evolved through centuries. In his text regarding the origin of meme, Gleick asks who is responsible of the outcomes eventually. It’s a bit terrifying question, since evolution might be everything but controllable. Johanna Drucker’s text clarified how the visual conventions and systems are created. The Man in the Middle by C.W. Mills was only which didn’t quite succeed on capturing my attention: it felt like reading a poor echo of the texts of previous reading.  

World makes sense through our senses

It's almost overwhelming to think what kind of systems human mind has created in order to make more sense in this chaotic world around us. We are eager to recognize patterns and create connections, even if they don’t exist. Our cognitive abilities interpret the signals they get through our senses, often based on cultural context and intertwined with previous experience. We live in the visual culture, and I can’t help but wonder, do we rely too much to our vision?  

History of knowledge and visual presentation walk hand in hand. Drucker states that for long, graphic methods have been crucial to science in many ways: recording observation, expressing results, testing hypotheses, formulating projects. Johannes Stradanus claimed that every aspect of human knowledge could be communicated visually, but now is known that the breadth and depth of knowledge exceeds the capability of visual presentation. In addition, visual codes are unstable, too imprecise to communicate knowledge with certainty – is it even possible to create a codification of visual principles or to have a universal visual language system?

Can’t help thinking that creating one universal visual language is a challenging task, because individual cognitive abilities and restrictions define how the information is transmitted and interpreted. Visual presentations do not have a one single cultural convention, but many. Naturally, there can be found some common basic visual forms and perception rules (e.g. Gestalt). However, common rules and basic principles based on conventions facilitate understanding. We as designers cannot guarantee that the message is understood, but by understanding these facts we can support it.

Human is prone to error

What really bothers me when considering visual representations, is that human mind is also prone to error and creating (cognitive) biases in visual world. No matter how much we want to rationalize and reason, we tend to be led by our emotions and previous experiences, in good and in bad. To some extent, visual presentations always plead to (and play with) our emotions.

I wasn’t fully aware of the original concept meme before I read Gleick’s text, but it seems the idea of meme is now more actual than ever. They’re mimicking information selectively, based on the ideas, which are selected (almost randomly) from almost an infinite pool of information. There are so many platforms, channels and interfaces where information can spread, but at the same time it’s not enough and it’s too much. Who can control the quality and validity of the information? All people are not equivalent when it comes to knowledge and information. On digital age it could be accessible to everyone, but still it’s not. Reading and interpreting it require skills.

Margaret Atwood’s quote makes me think of all the possible directions human evolution could’ve taken instead of the one we’re currently living. “As with all the knowledge, once you knew it, you couldn’t imagine how it was that you hadn’t known it before. Like stage magic, knowledge before you knew it took place before your very eyes, but you were looking elsewhere.” It almost overwhelms my mind to think if the things we call science are based on memes which were generated in brilliant but obsessive people’s brains and we found evidence to support them just because we wanted to see some kind of order in this chaotic world.

Gleick states that “it was obviously predictable that manufactured electronic computers, too, would eventually play host to self-replicating patterns of information.” Nothing seems to be original; everything has a pattern. Does this mean that anything in this world could be predicted if there only was enough information and a powerful system enough to interpret that information?

Conclusion

What I find all these texts have in common? They force the reader to be aware of the risks of the information around us – it must be inspected and interpreted carefully acknowledging the systems its transferred with. In that viewpoint, these texts were a bit disturbing – if I’d be constantly aware of all these things, I would be exhausted by information overflow at some point.

Summary, Reading I (Discourse and Authorship in Design Practice) by Suvi, 23 Sept 2018.

In our reading group the authorship was reviewed from several perspectives, but each of us found the concept somewhat difficult to define in the context of modern design practice.

A question of necessity of the definition also puzzled our minds: why authorship actually needs to be defined and who needs the definition in the end? Economics was one of the reasons that was recognized based on the texts we read (the monetary value of authorship), and another might lie somewhere among societal structures (property rights, recognition and reputation), but these two questions were not fully answered during our conversation.  

In general, a designer’s role(s) and practice seem to be constantly evolving, which each of us can already tell based on our own experience, but the definition of an author covers only a fraction of it. If an authorship is defined, does it define also designer’s work and style? And does possessing the authorship increase or reduce designer’s freedom (e.g. co-branding)?

An interesting aspect was also the connection between authorship and branding. Does commerciality change authorship or is modern authorship more branding? It’s much more challenging to remember individual designer’s work than recognize an international brand (when considering what public audience recognizes).

In designer’s work there are multiple layers, which were explored through our discussion. The designer can adapt to varied situations while working with wide scale of materials and formats in different environments and platforms. The designer is able to adapt as the client or agency requires, but if the designer is acknowledged as an author, is it then the environment that adapts to the author’s work?

Giving the authorship to a designer might create a pressure to an individual to stick to in certain practices and styles. However, when it is given to a group (or a brand or agency) the responsibility is shared. In addition, we questioned the need of expressing strong opinions as an author, if part of the definition of an author is representing oneself as convincing and respected professional – can these qualities be earned without presenting strong and even diverting opinions?

Our meandering discussion also touched themes from designer’s identity to property rights and ownership and their connection to the authorship, e.g. what happens to authorship when the work of a designer is sold or lasts only for a moment? Is it possible for an anonymous designer (or collective) be an author?

Introduction, Reading I (Discourse and Authorship in Design Practice) by Suvi, 21 Sept 2018. 

Defining the concept of authorship seemed fairly unambiguous at first, but the more I read the more I struggled to comprehend the definition, a consistent one at least. I found myself questioning the necessity of the definition and ended up exploring the added value it gives to the designer. According to Michael Rock (1996) the definition helps to find new approaches and understand design processes, but also to reinforce subjectivity and (design) strategies.

However, it seems that the concept of authorship is constantly evolving and context-dependent, especially in design. The meaning of it has shifted during decades, also in the fields where the history (e.g. literature).

Structures that define the authorship

According to Rock the discussion of the authorship has become a popular theme in graphic design field. What are the reasons (and needs) behind this phenomenon? Rock suggests that it gives a designer an active role as a professional who has their own voice, but also a responsibility. Does this mean that the definition add value to a designer’s work, to their practice or to the field?

The practical and economic values are might have been formed through the structures in our society, e.g. property rights and commercial approach, which at least in print publication are closely connected to the new conception of authorship. The published work is regulated and recognized in a way that which makes authorship possible. It also seems that the more widely recognized the designer is, the greater is the economic value.  

The role of societal structures and even laws become important factors in defining an authorship, since they allow a designer to register their work under their own name in a way it cannot be denied. To some extent ownership is a part of authorship.

However, in Andrew Bennet’s (2005) text there was this definition by Pierre Bourdieu, ‘“economic world reversed”, the value of a work is precisely equated with its supposed distance from its field of production’, which I’ d gladly discussed further, since it’s meaning wasn’t completely clear to me.  

Can there be and author without success and fame?

In literature a kind of a configuration of an alienated authorship has been an important dimension of an author – an author is uniquely separate from society, a lone genius. There’s been a shift from an anonym actor to a subjective individual.  

The social context plays definitely a central role in defining the authorship, since the authorship seems to be typically defined by someone else than an author themselves. Bennet states that the author’s work is to be respected and believed – the author makes authoritative statements. Is that the added value gives – authority of design? Authority is not something that can be decided, instead, it is gained through time and in communication in social context. But does it make, for example, for a starting designer impossible to be an author?  

I’m under an impression (based on the Finnish history of design I know) that some decades ago, it was easier for a few “superstar designers” to gain reputation among public general, but as the field grew, even talented designers were recognized among smaller groups, in their own social context. These designers might’ve been respected by their own colleagues and fellow designers but be unknown to the wider audiences. Were they authors just by signing their work? 

What is the real social value of defining the authorship in design? Is it the added credibility and respect for the field or the individual designer?

The personal value for a designer

According to Bennett an author is both individual but also a part of tradition. Every piece of work is unique but can also be seen in a continuum of a tradition. In history an author was seen an important tradition of social desire but a divine seer with visionary powers, in the end as an outsider. Regarding literature divinely inspired “madman” excluded from general public (in Greek Culture). As there was something divine if one was recognized as an author.

A clear addition to designer’s personal value would be the credibility and respect stated in the previous chapter. But tied to the tradition a designer also gets a frame of reference, and their work become a part of history no matter the generally acknowledged reputation. Being aware of the professional knowledge, that’s been cumulating over the years, might add more (personal) meaning to their work.  

But can it also be a limiting factor in the personal point of view? There’s already many boxes existing where a designer should fit in and claiming an authorship might be creating a new one. In addition, a designer might orchestrate multiple materials, formats and channels. Does the format or material make a difference when defining the authorship?

Rock also suggests three new roles for a designer: translator, performer, director. Then authorship is just another viewpoint for a designer to rethink of their practice, but also offer a bridge between interdisciplinary discussion.

Conclusion

To sum up, discussing about the definition and concept of authorship might be a useful tool for a designer to reinvent and develop the field, since there isn’t just one definition to the concept of author. It is possible to apply the definition to a designer, at least as an originator and the owner of the work.