Global | Local | Two | Hardt

Will,

I think that "authority" can be considered in more than one way. Certainly the traditional mold of the Genius Designer with the Big Idea fits easily. But cannot a designer rest on the "authority" of experience, and cannot that experience be an accumulation of observing, researching, and reacting to problems? I am reminded that I see this gentler side of authority every day when Meredith speaks and People Listen.

If we consider this definition of authority, I don't think designers must take sides at all, but consider which side and strategy is appropriate to begin to address a given problem.

I do not believe personally that designers need (or should) have "Positions" (or "stances") relative to anything/everything, but that design can be most useful in a medial capacity, facilitating, channeling, organizing, cajoling, ushering. The time to shout down from the mountain (or, poster) is long over.

Perhaps this is the "beside" of which you speak, although I'm not sure a Marx-esque solidarity amongst designers is as interesting or relevant to me as a stronger relationship between a designer and her audience. The old version of "authority" privileges the needs and ROI of the client. The new version has the skill to develop a "beside" with its audiences, both intended and unintended.

SPECIES

I am going to take a stab at answering these question(s) here…

I’m going to posit that Will’s term “beside” refers to the affective, cultural, and therefore immaterial “products” or rather “potential” that every corporation generates (in addition to their physical/rational gadgets, gizmos, doodads and so forth). And this being said, the category of “beside” is larger and more important that the physical “excess” that a corporation generates which makes the “beside” more of a real and consequential contribution to society.

I wholeheartedly believe that the example of film-maker who comments on the value of the shirt-makers product by promoting its’ use in his/her film, is a phenomenon that is completely organic. This belief is ABSOLUTE to me, even if both of these seemingly disconnected bodies are owned by a huge conglomerate like Viacom that forces cross-promotion among all of it’s children companies. If Viacom forces Paramount to promote the new SpongeBob car trinket in the current kids’ movie, it doesn’t mean the public will desire it any more or any less.

See, the shirt maker company can strive to reach as much of the market as possible, but it can in no way design whether the product will be respected and then remediated successfully, authentically, striking a chord among the consumer population. And further, the “shirt” story could devolve and no one would or could plan that either. What I mean is that the shirt, via the movie exposure, could become so high in demand, that the factory can’t accommodate for its’ spiked sales, which in turn, could cause total consumer rage, which would then be satirically documented by any number of authoritarian periodicals destroying all equity and all allegiance to the shirt maker and his/her body of products.

This association between the two variables can be good or bad. But it is in my opinion, a roll of the die.

Where does design fit in all of this? Can this process be rationalized? Honestly, I feel like those questions are akin to asking, can response to product be controlled? And see, people like Al and Laura Reis would like us to think so. But come on! We (the 12 of us) smirk with derisive laughter at such outlandish claims! I don’t fault their enthusiasm for going global, not at all. But even I find fault with their colonial-style manifesto that reads like a list of assumptions, simplifications and empty promises. I like what they are saying about branding and such, but not how they say it. The how in this case, is the design…

One last idea about this organic, mutating “besideness”… involves kids. I’ve been doing a lot of reading about them for thesis and I’m positively convinced that they know more about networking, fractioning, riffing, spliffing, mixing, matching and other various “beside” issues than any of us could ever hope to understand. They don’t really produce anything, instead they comment, critique, conform, ignore, distribute, repeat, etc…And for them, it’s purely organic. I’m not talking about products and advertising, I’m talking about communicating. One person is in fact many people in one crossing many boundaries many times. And today, more than ever before, “beside” is no design, it’s survival.

SPECIES

I’m going to posit that Will’s term “beside” refers to the affective, cultural, and therefore immaterial “products” or rather “potential” that every corporation generates (in addition to their physical/rational gadgets, gizmos, doodads and so forth). And this being said, the category of “beside” is larger and more important that the physical “excess” that a corporation generates which makes the “beside” more of a real and consequential contribution to society.

I wholeheartedly believe that the example of film-maker who comments on the value of the shirt-makers product by promoting its’ use in his/her film, is a phenomenon that is completely organic. This belief is ABSOLUTE to me, even if both of these seemingly disconnected bodies are owned by a huge conglomerate like Viacom that forces cross-promotion among all of it’s children companies. If Viacom forces Paramount to promote the new SpongeBob car trinket in the current kids’ movie, it doesn’t mean the public will desire it any more or any less.

See, the shirt maker company can strive to reach as much of the market as possible, but it can in no way design whether the product will be respected and then remediated successfully, authentically, striking a chord among the consumer population. And further, the “shirt” story could devolve and no one would or could plan that either. What I mean is that the shirt, via the movie exposure, could become so high in demand, that the factory can’t accommodate for its’ spiked sales, which in turn, could cause total consumer rage, which would then be satirically documented by any number of authoritarian periodicals destroying all equity and all allegiance to the shirt maker and his/her body of products.

This association between the two variables can be good or bad. But it is in my opinion, a roll of the die.

Where does design fit in all of this? Can this process be rationalized? Honestly, I feel like those questions are akin to asking, can response to product be controlled? And see, people like Al and Laura Reis would like us to think so. But come on! We (the 12 of us) smirk with derisive laughter at such outlandish claims! I don’t fault their enthusiasm for going global, not at all. But even I find fault with their colonial-style manifesto that reads like a list of assumptions, simplifications and empty promises. I like what they are saying about branding and such, but not how they say it. The how in this case, is the design…

One last idea about this organic, mutating “besideness”… involves kids. I’ve been doing a lot of reading about them for thesis and I’m positively convinced that they know more about networking, fractioning, riffing, spliffing, mixing, matching and other various “beside” issues than any of us could ever hope to understand. They don’t really produce anything, instead they comment, critique, conform, ignore, distribute, repeat, etc…And for them, it’s purely organic. I’m not talking about products and advertising, I’m talking about communicating. One person is in fact many people in one crossing many boundaries many times. And today, more than ever before, “beside” is no design, it’s survival.

In response to Will's 1 above, I think that the primary product, when we're talking about design and marketing in a global context, is what you're calling the "beside". We're seeing now that a purchase or a desire is not about the product, but about the brand or the expected experience associated with it. At the risk of sounding like the Wretched Ries Family (of 22 immutable laws), although a consumer's desire initially stems from associations with the product having some positive qualities (taste, comfort, makes you jump higher, whatever), what they're really buying into is the brand and the meaning behind it, not the "real" object.

Further, I'm not sure they can be separated. In your example, I'm imagining the factory worker creating a real object, and I just don't see it. Maybe she makes stitches or adds rivets. Even if she assembles the whole thing, she still didn't harvest the cotton or die the fabric. Maybe she's stitching a logo onto a back pocket that was conceived in a boardroom (immaterially). How can products themselves be considered real or immaterial when they require both types of labor for production, and affect the consumers in both real and imagined ways?

I need to spend some more time figuring out if I think this collectivity is synthetic or organic. I'll be back later.

24/7
Hardt's interest in the contributing factors to design professional process (those beyond what occurs 8-5 in front of the screen) is right on. Designers, by their very nature are observers, thus, every moment of everyday we are aware of the visual world, observing, gathering. This process contributes to our creative production, although this is not always immediately tangible. Look to Martin Venezky's studio wall as an example. It is in constant state of being built. The random layering and unplanned compositions (of appropriated materials) become a form of inspiration that may/may not tangibly show up in his design work.

individually, for all
I mentioned the parallel between the research done at Master and PhD level is akin in a (loose) way to the open source movement. The philosophy for conducting non-proprietary research in order to move the field forward is like the open source mantra to add/change/hack code as a contribution to the good of the movement, for the good of the community. Hardt mentioned ownership of a seed's genetic information. Just as collective knowledge has contributed to agriculture, the collective knowledge of programmers/designers contributes to greater whole (whether it tangible as software, or immaterial like a design process or the formation of perception). As in the Johnson's theory of Emergence, the individual (i.e. design student/hacker/"commons") is a contributor towards the larger living organization of the collective (i.e. design profession/open source movement/society).

naturally design
These issue of collaborative creativity and contribution are organic, natural processes. It is intrinsic to our contemporary times, and thus, to design, especially in interactive media. The fact that it is organic does not mean design does not belong. In fact, there is no better place for design than within emergent systems and collective creative processes. It does mean, however, that it is time to reconsider the position of design. The antiquated description that design is an authoritative, rational response is no longer a relevant model for the field to follow.

Jay, a medial capacity is a position, no? To say that the time to shout down from the mountain is over is a form of shouting down, no? So far I still see a position. A specific position in fact.

Jess, I might suggest you look up the history of "childhood" another highly constructed category. Michael Hardt might be able to help out here.

Cheryl, I appreciate your observation that within and beside cant be separated in reality. From the standpoint of things like positions and processes of persuasion, it can often be useful to imagine, ponder, ruminate on differences for the sake of argumentation or illustrating the components of inherently complex processes.

“To Be Within, Or To Beside”

In response to Will question on the process of making the beside. I agree with Cheryl in that if we looked at this from the Ries family philosophy then this process is very much synthetic. Marketer would like us to believe that every move we make in buying is because the “beside” decided in some boardroom months ago that we should act this way. To make this concept clearer for myself I began by looking at the trend of boys wearing baggie pants way below their waist. The producer of the jeans represent the within and the rap stars wearing them in the music video represent the “beside”. Now the question is was it strategically planned by the music industry or organic occurrence. I feel as though the latter in correct. Many rape stars have spent their fair share of time in prison, which is where that trend actually started. Once getting out of jail and turning into a rape star they kept the jail style and it was reflected in their videos, which kids saws and began imitating. Thereby increasing the sale on baggy jean. This process I believe was very organic. However, there are other instances where it can be argued that the process of synthetic. For example, the way the Nike brands it shoes so that children everywhere desires to have a pair of Air Jordans. So I believe the process can go both ways.

What role does design play in all this process. Well, speaking for myself I feel as though my job is to facilitate between my client and it's audience. In order to do that I must understand who they both are and then design according to link them up. I agree with Jay that I do not see the need for a designer to choose sides in order to “make”. I make from my understanding of who both sides are. If I just focus in on understanding who I am designing for and to instead of analyzing whether I am within or beside I believe I will do a better job of communicating effectively. Ultimately, the audience will decide for themselves whether my “make” is desirable to them and that is true whether I am designing from within or beside. I feel as though the audience has a lot more power in this equation than any of us want to believe.

will -- keep in mind my sentence wasn't just truncated to
"I do not believe personally that designers need (or should) have 'Positions'," but was followed by "relative to anything/everything."

what i meant by that admittedly unclear formulation was that designers shouldn't stake out turf before considering a specific problem. i think design positions should be contextual. yes, this is a position -- relative to the context of the question you asked.

if indeed i was "shouting" that position, that is different than a capital-D Designer shouting (through design, not writing) to an audience/user. echoing jamie's comment, that is the model of "position" that i think is dead, or at least, dying.

I agree with Renee that the within and besides can function both organically and synthetically, but I think the two are more intertwined then when first examined. I agree that trends or the affective value, can begin either from the top down (affects created by corporate strategy like Michael Jordon wearing nike sneakers) or organically from the bottom up(low baggy pants example). I think marketing groups don’t always care how this began, but rather have learned to tap into this phenomenon and profit from it. Through market research, they examine which ideas/styles/items have cultural currency or have tapped into a cultural chord and then develop strategies for marketing those exact ideas/styles/items from an affective standpoint. So ideas/styles/items can begin either organically or synthetically but once the idea/style/item and affects surrounding them exist, marketing can synthetically augment it.

I think marketing groups can also remove themselves further by creating larger meta-trends surrounding specific groups in efforts to have the group organically generate an affect for future products. The affects surrounding the future products can evolve organically from the bottom up, but only exist because of the synthetically devised meta-culture surrounding the organically produced affects. This is a case where the distinction between synthetic and organic affects is very difficult to discern.

This is a decisive shift in marketing strategies from trying to create a demand for an existing product to letting the consumer decide what they want and then making/marketing it. This goes back to Fischer’s idea that organizations are no longer looking at their target as consumers but rather as co-creators. So if we co-create affect is it synthetic or organic, or, is there another continuum that this can be examined along that would shed more light onto this subject.

i've always seen myself as positioned both beside and within the realm of production Proper. wherever one is positioned, there is no assurance of authority, nor authenticity. one could suggest that a two point perspective is necessary to make a meaningful contribution to one's area of culture... but who doesn't have that? it's a matter of scale.

i would like to offer that i'm a little skeptical of overly laborious self-positioning. i think individuals are capable of changing the world without even having the intention of doing so—groups too. there are individuals who might set out on a lifelong mission to solve a particular problem, alone, and seem to succeed. however, how can he/she even guage if the objectives of his/her mission have remained meaningful in a broader social context?

sometimes we may try to bridge chasms that are larger than we are able to extend across. if we are in a community, the effort might still be a significant contribution. it is only in a strictly solo effort, and when one is so self conscious that he/she would attempt to coverup a failed attempt, that there is no clear benefit to the greater good. sometimes individuals take on challenges which should be beyond grasp, but nonetheless meet them.

i think there are a variety of responses which can be made in the "beside realm", but authority proper is something usually feigned. the authority which comes from experience, and which resonates, is the only true authority—and this cannot simply be put-on or decided upon.

fear of ambivalence is something to consult a psychotherapist about i think. i could offer that ambivalence could be seen as an important part of many constructive processes.

rationality is a highly relative term… if one believes in "intelligent design", for example... i've never believed in rationality personally. however, i think it's good for one to try and be rational occaisionally.

I think the interest in position is important. I would ask that ‘we’ look at how we position ourselves. I’m of the opinion that a neutral position is a traditional conceit that typifies the professional designer. Each of you, obviously, must to some extent adopt this conceit in order to be successful in your work. I would suggest you examine the presuppositions that ground the act of taking a neutral position against those presuppositions that ground the act of taking a more interested one. I think these positions are not just different, they are mutually dependant on one another and produce each other at the same time. You cannot have interested positions without disinterested ones. They are actors in the same play, take one away and you have no play. My question, what is the relationship between this very designerly position of neutrality or disinterested strategist, and the forces shaping the processes of globalization? Based on many comments thus far, I think we all have a pretty good imagination of the benefits this neutrality provides, what are the costs?

The costs of remaining neutral to the (current) processes of globalization (because, remember me? I'm still trying to figure out how the shift to a better process can be had, since I do believe that a halt or reversal to globalization is improbable) have huge ramifications on the profession. By remaining silent (disinterested/neutral), the clout (read: voice, influence) that we'll have on our audiences will be virtually silent. Already, we're largely misunderstood as window-dressers and not purveyors of information; the ones who 'prettify' things at the end, vs. the front-end strategists & collaborators. The impact we can have with the messages we make will be lost if we don't position ourselves (the 'we' as a profession) as effective communicators.

Additionally, remaining neutral shifts the balance towards the side of greed, capitalism and exploitation (and so I might argue that there's no such thing as 'neutral'). It's akin to not voting—by not doing so, you amplify the voice of the side that you might have been inclined to disagree with, but thought, "why bother?" By not saying anything (by taking a position of neutrality), we give license for things to proceed as they are.

It relates back to the issue of authenticity that we discussed so heavily last year. To be true to ourselves (as designers and as individuals), we should feel free to speak up. Change is only made by voicing opinions—they don't have to be angry, loud, or extreme, but they should be audible. Not to do so will be costly.

The loss of responsibility is a cost of neutrality. When discussing ethics or collaboration, it is easy to get lost in the rationality of an idea or a program. Point blank, when the shit hits the fan, where will the finger be pointed?

The friction seems to be between message and agent. Who is responsible for the action when so may individuals have contributed? The designer may revert to the comfort of “don’t shoot the messenger” or “don’t shoot the mediator” instead of recognizing the power that the designer possesses (as an individual or within a group).

It seems that synthetically structuring action welcomes misjudgment and catastrophe. How could a group of people (no matter how educated or experienced) possibly anticipate where all the dominos will fall once the action is initiated? Organic growth is also problematic because it lacks infrastructure and becomes wasteful in redundancy.

I don’t know.

There may be some merit in teasing apart the hierarchy that motivates the designer to create the frame (visual or conversional) instead of the content. Is it ultimately my goal, as a designer, to guide conversation or to allow it to happen in the first place? Both involve collaboration, but to what magnification of control?

test

Jon
If I had to choose between rhetorics of reality and reality itself, I'll choose rhetorics, at least there is a paper trail!

I'm not sure, for the purposes of an advanced degree in any discipline, what value one should place in any act which succesfully changes anything unintentionally. I assume you are interested in measurable causes and effects, however successfull or failing? I think your privileding of the 'real' effects over the causes allows you to remove agency from the individual and thus be skeptical of "overly laborious self positioning." I also think you give little attention to attribution, the process by which actions are credited to certain parties over others. At some point it is just easier, more mnemonic perhaps, to associate work with a name. However "true" attribution is, is often irrelevant. That said, I will work to moderate my investment in the self in future, though I believe it is the ultimate arbiter of critical thinking and the "thing" granted the most attention and authority, traditionally, in more humanistic forms of higher ed. (I am, for better or worse, a humanist).

As for the feigning of authority, I'm not sure there is any other kind. The ability to convince others of one's authority is significantly performative not based in real experiences. What is "real" authority anyway? This is why I asked the question: how does one make "authoritatively" which understands that authority lies somewhere between real experiece and the ability to convince others that that experience is real.

Tracy
You introduce the issue of voice, great! I was pondering the relative silence of activities which are organized under our "facilitator" label. You bring up a wicked area here, voice is about an individual responsiblity which exceeds a professional one. I think for US to think beyond the profession is very difficult within a "professional" school. Speaking from an historical perspective, I beleive the evolution of professionalization presumes a relative security in larger, pre-existing structures. The most obvious one is the nation state, the idea that a government "represents" our interests within a relatively stabilized internal peace so that we are free to persue and develop other lesser organizing systems, like professions (the aiga is american first and about graphic arts second). So, I think when we speak about the future of a vibrant and promising profession, it is the stodgy and antiquated imagination of nation-hood that to some degree "chaperones" us.