« Graphic Designers, the Immaterial Laborers | Main | Design and Multitudes »
September 05, 2005
common contributions
there were so many things about the reading i did that i found compelling that it would be foolish to try to comment on them all. so i will try to pinpoint one small issue and examine the implications of that issue. here’s a quote:
“the difference of immaterial labor, however, is that its products are themselves, in many respects, immediately social and common. producing communication, affective relationships, and knowledges, in contrast to cars and typewriters, can directly expand the realm of what we share in common.” Multitude p 114
if hardt/negri’s assertion here is true, then it raises a few questions for me:
1) what is my responsibility as an immaterial laborer (graphic designer) to the common?
hardt also says that immaterial labor moves beyond economic to become social, cultural, political. these notions help me to recognize the multiple implications of the work that i produce. not that i’m changing the world, but contributing in small ways to people’s perceptions of their world. it helps to define what my larger societal role as a designer is and how i might expect to contribute to society. if i understand that what i produce has immediate social implications, then i can address those possibilities as part of the project. of course there is always the spectre of doubt. i certainly believe that a design artifact can be simultaneously political, social and cultural, but it seems nearly impossible to make something worthwhile what that kind of (self imposed?) pressure.
2) what does my internal desire to claim an idea as my own say about my relationship to the common?
i personally love and identify strongly with the ideas of both the multitude and the common that the multitude shares. at the same time, i recognize my internal desire for recognition, which stems from pride. even within a collaborative setting i sometimes find myself trying to recall who came up with the initial idea that generated the product, even as i recognize the uselessness and pettiness of that effort. it has been necessary to remind myself that it is not important who generated the idea, but that it was generated; it is out in the world ready to be taken in by others, mutated, improved, distilled into something more. we can recall meredith’s claim as to why a phd program is important -- that much new design knowledge is proprietary (i would say ‘belonging to empire’) and we need public knowledge (for the common). and hey, if meredith and michael hardt are on the same page, who can argue with that?
3) how and where does the common knowledge base intersect with empire’s ideas of intellectual property?
obviously a big topic and one that will keep cropping up. right now i feel that the desire to claim intellectual property rights is a product of pride -- my personal issue mentioned above. i am in disagreement with this policy not just because pride is bad, but because the notion of a proprietary idea seems to run counter to the notion of contributing openly to society. it amounts to token contribution, and tokens (money) are needed to access the idea, effectively rendering it unavailable to the underpriviledged. i admit much ignorance in this specific area, outside of these course readings, and perhaps i am polarizing and simplifying the debate too much. right now it seems like a major ideological chasm between empire and multitude.
4) what are the implications of a reduction in the qualitative divisions within labor?
my first thought on this is the notion of interdisciplinary collaboration, not unlike what michael schmidt discussed last week. but if you reduce qualitative divisions of labor, doesn’t that suggest that boundaries between jobs are blurring, that others will soon know more about design, that i will begin to learn more about other disciplines? i believe this is true, and is already happening. ncsu design undergrads are sometimes double majors, or have a strong minor at least. it seems smart to develop multiple interest areas that will facilitate collaborative environments.
Posted by tyler galloway at September 5, 2005 01:59 PM