October 2008 Archives

One of my long-standing projects is understanding the social use of communication technology and how space is changed and structured by these interactions. One of these projects in particular examined how people share mobile phones in urban India, shaped by constraints and contexts, born out of a study I did at Microsoft Research India in Bangalore in 2006. Two articles resulted from the work, one about to be published, the other published in spring 2008.

I wrote "Beyond the Personal and Private: Modes of Mobile Phone Sharing in Urban India" with Jonathan Donner of Microsoft Research India. It will be published later this month in The Reconstruction of Space and Time: Mobile Communication Practices (edited by Rich Ling and Scott Campbell). Here, I looked at sharing in a number of contexts and discovered that across class, caste and gender, mobile phone sharing is pervasive, but constraints (money, family mores, gender, literacy, adjacency) determine how the phone will be shared in different spatial contexts (we looked at domestic, out and about, the marketplace and village-to-urban social ecologies).

With Jonathan Donner, Nimmi Rangaswamy, and Carolyn Wei, we wrote "'Express Yourself' and 'Stay Together: The Indian Middle Class Family" in the Handbook on Mobile Communication Studies, edited by James Katz. It discusses of the effect of the mobile phone on several domestic situations: home finances, romance and the domestic boundary. 

Researching this project opened me up to new ways of understanding how mobile technology can fix spaces that seem transitory -- like a marketplace --  or how it calls attention to the porous nature of other spaces -- like the domestic boundary. It leaves open areas I'd very much like to research: issues of trust, of porosity, of connection across broad social networks in the traditional sense, a reconsideration of the fixed and mobile in a marketplace.

From our design session Sunday morning at Design Engaged: the network of bacon.

"There is almost nothing to build, and if we can really build somewhere, we do it to live. Or maybe you're lucky enough to be carrying out a good contract? I'm finding the practice to be cloying, and in principle, you all seem to be feeling the same way. Honestly: it is completely good that today nothing's being 'built.' Things can thus mature, we can collect our strength, and when it begins again, then we'll know our goals and be strong enough to protect our residents from dangerous adhesion or degeneracy. Let us consciously be imaginary architects."
--Bruno Taut

November 1919 and the post-World War I situation in Germany was dire. It would only get worse as hyperinflation skyrocketed for the next four years. While architects wanted to build, they found they could only educate and design. It was when the Bauhaus began and it was the site of a visionary exchange about the promise of architecture -- not as it was built but how it would be imagined. The group of 13 included Walter Gropius, Bruno and Max Taut, Hans Scharoun; they imagined the possibility of using film to express their ideas; they exchanged images and poetry and words.

(It also, amusingly, has a Myspace page.)

I'm a few days out from the fabulous third Design Engaged, so well-organized by Andrew Otwell, Jenn Bove, Boris Anthony and Mouna Andraos. I've talked to so many people at the event about things grand and banal, and now, I've reimmersed in school's more theoretical issues of critique, history and theory.

All of these things leave me thinking about the nature of design as it seemed to be defined by the community surrounding Design Engaged.

There is a real privileging of Making, to the extent that I feel I should capitalize the word. Making includes building something, prototyping, manufacturing a product. Making seems to be particularly valued when it results in something being not only prototyped but manufactured. It relies on tools and materials. Other things go into Making, like sketching, molding, and wiring. But Making does not seem to include writing, researching, or interpreting.

Design is the endeavor of form and forming. What to design and how to do it is the primary, vital question of the designer. Form takes place not only by work in three dimensions and by machines, but through conversation, interpretations and argument, by pencils and words and feedback. Since cybernetics, design has taken on networks and feedback, as a correcting mechanism, to define design problems, to introduce possibilities of the agency of objects.

Design can encompass the forming of things that never get built. This is the realm of sketch, drawing, rendering, model, maquette. All of these involve some manner of imagination, conception, figuration. Their formation may may be pinned up on a wall to be critiqued, may see their way into stacks of construction drawings or business plans. It may also stop at any moment: left in a sketchbook or hard drive, balled up after being spit from a plotter, left in a pile of old models, rejected in a competition, turned down by a client. If the instances of design only matter in their manufacture or construction, much -- or even most -- of design and architectural history must be written off.

The history of design since the founding of the Bauhaus (1918-1933) tackles the questions of building and making within a theoretical and built context. In the education and work of designer, there are many stops on the way: learnings of color and form, practice in a specific field, discovery of how all the fields converge to make the work of art. But also, this same trajectory tries to make sense of itself -- to perform, to write, to photograph, to document, to share.

Does Making leave out interpretation or sensemaking? If it excludes these activities, what does that say in turn for the nature of design? And where does it leave those of us for whom design involves these other activities?

I'm reminded of an e.e. cummings poem:

pity this busy monster, manunkind,

not. Progress is a comfortable disease:
your victim (death and life safely beyond)

plays with the bigness of his littleness
--- electrons deify one razorblade
into a mountainrange; lenses extend
unwish through curving wherewhen till unwish
returns on its unself.
                          A world of made
is not a world of born --- pity poor flesh

and trees, poor stars and stones, but never this
fine specimen of hypermagical

ultraomnipotence. We doctors know

a hopeless case if --- listen: there's a hell
of a good universe next door; let's go

I am in Montreal for Design Engaged 3, my third of three.

Four years ago, I was applying to graduate school, teaching again at Ivrea, and beginning to make a major life change into what I'm doing now. Three years ago, I had just begun my master's degree and was spun up about the possibilities of history and theory, of being a student, of wanting to share it. Today, I'm in my fourth year of it and am learning how to meld the world(s) I came from and the one(s) I'm in now.

These gatherings with this expanding and contracting group of people, first in Amsterdam, then in Berlin, now in Montreal, have been a vital community for me. It's wonderful to come back to this group, bounce the unfinished, meet the new, embrace the old, eat, drink, talk, listen. I'm delighted to be here again.