« Within and Beside | Main | Species »
September 12, 2005
Subversion
It seems that the logic of subversion (as in “The Yes Men” dvd I screened for seminar last week) is an “older” model of the 80s and 90s.
Questions:
3. Thoughts on our potential post-subversive period in design, the visual culture political activism?
4. Leaving aside my first question above, how would one design for this “beside” space?
5. Given Michael Schmidt’s admission two weeks ago that his new role as “Designer as Facilitator” is shaped largely by new digital technologies, what is the computer’s place in constructing this space of beside “already” for designers?
6. How does the computer, having in some ways, already “beaten us” to this new political frontier get at the larger issue of cybernetics and prosthesis that Michael Hardt brings up in his Immaterial Labor online article cited by Amber above?
Posted by william temple at September 12, 2005 12:02 PM
Comments
I am unsure as to why you suggest that subversion is suddenly out of date, or fashion. I don't think it is, personally--other than it sets up a (temporarily) antagonistic relationship between designer and audience. Isn't subversion exactly what you're getting at with the extension of the "within" space? It seems to me that the "immaterial" products created by design set up an infinite number of opportunities to "subvert" these products.
I would agree with the "already" in your question, albeit moreso within the "within" than the "beside." The computer itself is what makes our work "immaterial," and therefore subvertable. This seems much more fertile territory in terms of rethinking the role of design than only considering the enabling affordances of the computer in the "beside" space, ultimately a discussion of networking (re: my earlier post).
However, I don't want to draw too many distinctions, because the more I think about it, the computer melts "within" and "beside," making them problematic metaphors for the context of design. After all, that distinction is drawn from a material and mechanical model of production. Although graphic design interfaces with both, I would content that it itself is neither.
Posted by: jay at September 13, 2005 06:47 PM
I'm not sure I agree that we're really in a 'post-subversive' period… what the 80s had in Gran Fury and Guerilla Girls (though the Girls are still active today), we have in the likes of Jonathan Barnbrook, James Victore, Michael Moore.
However, in response to your "within" inquiry, I am willing to adopt a 'post-subversive' view, and recognize that one can design 'within' this space by recognizing that a designer is an audience member, and not separate from the audience (getting away from the "us vs. them" mentality).
I suppose in sum, it's not about categorizing the current era as subversive or post-subversive, but having both periods in our history, the current era is perhaps 'neo-subversive'?!?
Posted by: tracy at September 14, 2005 10:01 AM