#integrated2017

Two designers and master students in Visual Communication Design visited Antwerp for Integrated 2017, a conference with a focus on criticality and the politics of art and design.

Integrated is a biannual art & design conference arranged Nov 14-15 in Antwerp, Belgium by St Lucas School of Arts Antwerp. The conference is in its sixth edition, with the theme of 2017 being Between Creativity and Criminality: the Art and Design of the Civil Domain. It initially attracted us with its impeccably branded appearance, experimental website and provocative manifesto, and for being one of the few – if not the only – conference with a clear focus on critical practices and politics in design.

On the first day we reached the venue of DeSingel arts centre by city bikes. At the registration desk we were given cool, gradient festival wristbands and tote bags filled with posters and excessive printed matter. The program started early and would continue with back-to-back lectures until late evening with a few short coffee breaks and a complimentary lunch. Unfortunately, it turned out the coffee was weak and the lunch was sub-standard; a beautifully wrapped dry baguette with a slice of cheese inside (just sad really). We sat through the rest of the talks hoping the program would justify the catering let-down.

Diversity and criticality

Within the 2 days and 26 presentations there were some contradictory issues with the structure and values of Integrated that we could not ignore. Despite an insightful introduction by co-organizer of the event Pascal Gielen (BE) on The Art of Civil Action – Political Space and Cultural Dissent, we feel that the event itself fell short of upholding the criticality it refers to. First and foremost, the cultural diversity was shockingly narrow - with less than 10% of the speakers from outside of the EU. Secondly, in a few instances, “mankind” was used to address all genders, which prompts a speculative contemplation on the male majority of speakers. Mike Monteiro (US) addressed his concern for diversity and proposed: “When your design team is 90% white and male, you have already started marginalizing.” We recognize that when discussing critical design in a biannual conference setting, eurocentricity and patriarchal language will only hinder our collective global initiative.

Mike Monteiro

Nonetheless, there were a few unforgettable and engaging presentations that exceeded the norm. The presentation by Daniel van der Velden (NL) of Metahaven left us in visual bliss and deciphering their words: “The critical vocabulary is exhausted exactly when we need criticality the most.” There was also a particular instance where Nadya Tolokonnikova (RU), from the activist artist group Pussy Riot, took the initiative to include the audience in a spontaneous Q&A session after sharing her captivating experiences of rebelling against oppressive governance.

Nadya Tolokonnikova

Santiago Cirugeda (ESP) of Recetas Urbanas spoke of their practice of negotiating illegal and legal action in architecture in public space and encouraged the audience to study their constitution and to occupy their cities. Recetas Urbanas uses recycled materials in urban environments to collectively build alternative and communal facilities. In his presentation he questioned the purpose of aesthetics in design and asks: “Why does it have to be beautiful? Everyone has ugly friends too, who carry other, more important qualities in them.” This insight begs us to question the aesthetic emphasis and branding of design conferences such as Integrated. When considering the “civil domain,” we ponder if the need to design an abundance of free posters and printed ephemera should eclipse the need to design a balanced lunch.

Call for urgent civil action

Mike Monteiro (US) closed the conference with a riveting speech where he rhetorically asked: “How is ethics in design even still a question?”. The Integrated conference concerned the majority of its time with the obvious and with too few instances of worthwhile, broadening and criminal ingenuity. In this sense, we feel that the conference remained neutral in its intention, undermining its audience of designers, who have likely been aware for some time that design is, yes, in fact political. Our frustration resides in the fact that many of the speakers painstakingly narrated their own careers and too few speakers addressed the world’s enviro-socio-political issues with the sense of urgency they require. It was too often that the audience had their heads down, fingers scrolling through their smartphones and minds deep in another world.

As Anja Groten (DE) accordingly pointed out, “a critical designer asks questions, but also acts critically”. As designers, we see that demand for civil action and socio-environmental responsibility from all designers is paramount. If we wish to move forward, design that works within and grasps neoliberalist structures, institutions and resources is not going to suffice. We see that there is a need to bring designers together to question problems within the design industry but we question what constitutes expertise and if the one-way lecture structure is the best method for this cause. An aesthetically well designed and “thought-provoking” conference doesn't necessarily equate provoking action and the value of a design conference is perhaps in it’s timely opportunity to address a diverse group of people, with a diverse group of people, and by using diverse methods. It should value and recognize the audience as a contributor to the shared knowledge. It should facilitate the discovery of why we need to change and most importantly, awaken agency in an unprecedented collective dialogue and action.

“For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us to temporarily beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change” (Audre Lorde).

Text: Robynn McPherson & Kiia Beilinson