A few brief, helpful conversations
Rebecca Hayes: Rebecca is the person I've been in contact with about the debating society. I went to finalise a few things with her the friday before modelling week started. We covered advertising, which I need to start designing, and room booking before going onto a few other things. She suggested targeting other societies to begin with while deciding my topics such as the women's society, socialists, anti-war etc to pull in members. She also said that she saw my society as the umbrella for all the others. So no pressure there.
Miriam: Miriam is looking at visions of the future for her project and has always expressed an interest in using the debating society as a platform for this which is something I'd be really interested in. As it would have to involve some kind of 'motion' as in "This House would..." which I'm not sure how useful it would be for her, we also discussed the idea of running some kind of workshop with students that encouraged discussion and debate about visions of the future. It would mean that we both likely get something very useful, with it serving as another platform for experimentation for me. I was also considering whether I could team up with other people to run it, so it works as a series of workshops on various subjects.
Alex: Talking to my brother about this project lead me onto Asche, who performed experiments to do with obdience which I'm currently reading about in social psychology textbook. It has lead me onto a few other experiments which I'm currently starting to delve into.
Josh: I found out that one of my old school friends is actually the President of the UCL Debate Society, who's website I've been stalking for a few months but never realised it was him. Hopefully he'll be a great help in setting up the society and have some good tips for running it, topic selection etc.
Modelling Week: Day Four/Five
The last part of modelling week was performing our project in a one mintue thirty seconds time slot on Friday afternoon. It turned out to be a pretty cool session, though there was annoying amount of people who didn't turn up but we bought some cider and beer which probably helped a lot with performance nerves.
My performance was intially going to be some kind of scripted debated, however after a discussion with Rosario in which she recommended I watch the movie Thank You for Smoking, in which there is a scene where the main character, a tobacco lobbyist, explains debating to his son, how he's not about persuading his opponent but rather the audience. I took this scene, as I felt it really dealt with the core of my project, and re-wrote it so that it was more specific to my ideas with written in directions for one of the characters to do, which would also be read out, highlighting this concept of how managed politicians are. Stacey and Ed agreed to perform it for me, and I asked Stacey to be "Person Two", who the directions in italic apply to, and I read these out as she did them.
****
Person 1: ...so what happens when you're wrong?
Person 2: I'm never wrong. And neither are you. [make a little sweeping gesture with your hand. They are wrong really.]
Person 1: But we can't always both be right...
Person 2: Well, if you believe in being right enough, then you’re never wrong.
Person 1: But what if you are wrong and I’m right?
Person 2 : Okay, let’s take an example. Say my name is Tilen [point to yourself with both hands] and your name is Ester [point to them with both hands]. I say to you; I like meat, I eat meat all the time and you say...
Person 1: No, vegetarian is better. It’s wrong to eat meat.
Person 2: Exactly, but how can you win that argument?... You can’t, so I ask you: so you think vegetables are the be all and end all?
Person 1: Yes, I wouldn’t eat meat if you paid me.
Person 2: Right, so it’s all vegetables for you?
Person 1: Yes, vegetables are all I need.
Person 2: Ah, but [turn to the audience, remember you are their friend, you want what’s best for them] I [use both hands to indicate yourself] need more than vegetables, and for that matter I need more than meat [emphasise your point by spreading your hands, open and palms facing out, including the audience as an extension of yourself] I believe that we need freedom and choice when it comes to food, and in all areas of our life, and that, that right there, is the definition of liberty. [turn back to face your opponent, smiling]
Person 1: But we’re not talking about any of that. And we’re not American either.
Person 2: Ah, but you see, that’s what I was talking about. [share a look with the audience, this guy is a little slow, but they understand what you’re talking about because they’re intelligent]
Person 1: but you still didn't prove that being an omnivore was a better choice than being a vegetarian.
Person 2: I didn’t have to. The important part is that I proved you wrong and in doing so, proved that I’m right.
Person 1: I’m not convinced though. I’m not going to start eating meat or...
Person 2: It's not you that I’m after, my friend. I'm after them. [sweep a hand towards the audience] If I can convince just one vegetarian to go back to meat then I have won. And of course, I always win because I am always right.
****
This is something I'd like to play with, the idea of creating debates that entirely structured and managed so the person talking is merely a puppet, which seems to be what a lot of politicians are or become over time.
My performance was intially going to be some kind of scripted debated, however after a discussion with Rosario in which she recommended I watch the movie Thank You for Smoking, in which there is a scene where the main character, a tobacco lobbyist, explains debating to his son, how he's not about persuading his opponent but rather the audience. I took this scene, as I felt it really dealt with the core of my project, and re-wrote it so that it was more specific to my ideas with written in directions for one of the characters to do, which would also be read out, highlighting this concept of how managed politicians are. Stacey and Ed agreed to perform it for me, and I asked Stacey to be "Person Two", who the directions in italic apply to, and I read these out as she did them.
****
Person 1: ...so what happens when you're wrong?
Person 2: I'm never wrong. And neither are you. [make a little sweeping gesture with your hand. They are wrong really.]
Person 1: But we can't always both be right...
Person 2: Well, if you believe in being right enough, then you’re never wrong.
Person 1: But what if you are wrong and I’m right?
Person 2 : Okay, let’s take an example. Say my name is Tilen [point to yourself with both hands] and your name is Ester [point to them with both hands]. I say to you; I like meat, I eat meat all the time and you say...
Person 1: No, vegetarian is better. It’s wrong to eat meat.
Person 2: Exactly, but how can you win that argument?... You can’t, so I ask you: so you think vegetables are the be all and end all?
Person 1: Yes, I wouldn’t eat meat if you paid me.
Person 2: Right, so it’s all vegetables for you?
Person 1: Yes, vegetables are all I need.
Person 2: Ah, but [turn to the audience, remember you are their friend, you want what’s best for them] I [use both hands to indicate yourself] need more than vegetables, and for that matter I need more than meat [emphasise your point by spreading your hands, open and palms facing out, including the audience as an extension of yourself] I believe that we need freedom and choice when it comes to food, and in all areas of our life, and that, that right there, is the definition of liberty. [turn back to face your opponent, smiling]
Person 1: But we’re not talking about any of that. And we’re not American either.
Person 2: Ah, but you see, that’s what I was talking about. [share a look with the audience, this guy is a little slow, but they understand what you’re talking about because they’re intelligent]
Person 1: but you still didn't prove that being an omnivore was a better choice than being a vegetarian.
Person 2: I didn’t have to. The important part is that I proved you wrong and in doing so, proved that I’m right.
Person 1: I’m not convinced though. I’m not going to start eating meat or...
Person 2: It's not you that I’m after, my friend. I'm after them. [sweep a hand towards the audience] If I can convince just one vegetarian to go back to meat then I have won. And of course, I always win because I am always right.
****
This is something I'd like to play with, the idea of creating debates that entirely structured and managed so the person talking is merely a puppet, which seems to be what a lot of politicians are or become over time.
Modelling Week: Day Three/Four
For the third and half of the fourth day [for presentation] the brief was to cook out project. I wanted initially to play with the idea of food that needs to be debated through, eaten from two sides or something similar but after a short conversation with Jack I came to the idea of using something chewy or hard to eat as a way of creating 'protected time', time within a debate being something that I've been previously interested in. With this in mind I made toffee.
This was the recipe:
300g / 12oz Demerarar sugar
100g / 4oz butter
2 level tablespoons of golden syrup
1 level tablespoon of black treacle
4 tablespoons of water
I added more treacle to one batch which made it darker and far more bitter. I presented the larger, stickier chunks in a box labelled Protected Time, the idea being that while one person was eating the toffee, they wouldn't be able to reply to their opponent. Rosario suggested the idea of a meal where one person had all the hard to chew foods so that the other was able to keep talking the whole way through, which I really liked, maybe designing objects to be used throughout the day that keep your 'opponent' quiet to deal with every day debates people have with each other.
I wrapped the left over chunks up with debating points so that if one person took a piece of toffee, there would four different debates, formed, each with an opposition and proposition team.
[from Liam's flickr]
Modelling Week: Day Two
Finally updating here.
The second day involved constructing the project through fabric. I wanted to develop the idea of the communication devices, like the double megaphone, to construct spaces of debate. It turned into an enforced space of debate as I began making, with Jimmy encouraging me to just go big and make a full scale thing after I was attempting to make a small scale version. The basic idea was to have some kind of fabric tunnel connecting two fabric head covers so the two debators are forced to maintain eye contact and constant interaction, be it just staying close enough to each other so the fabric remains comfortable. I continued to consider this idea of enforced debate and also how people debate using body language, hand gestures, props so I decided to remove hands altogether from the equation by attaching a strip of fabric to the back of each hood which then bound the debators hands behind their backs, this reducing the debate down to bare essentials. Unfortunately, because of the time restraints, I rushed to finish it, and sewed up the connection piece of fabric in a way that meant the debators couldn't see each other, though they were still bound together and could hear each other. Though this was an unexpected outcome, it seemed to produce a more interesting space of debate than the original idea.
Modelling Week: Day One
I have quite a lot to add here, so this is going to come in a few posts. We had a week of modelling and this was the first day, which was traditional modelling materials, like card, paper, wire etc. Initially we had a talk from Pete Marigold, who was helping us for the day, about his work which was really interesting. I liked his use of found objects, but also he'd done a project creating objects which he then had to produce a history or mythology about. His objects were tools that he claimed had been invented by way of cargo cult after a ship crashed during a storm and the local people plundered it. He used wikipedia and inserted his objects, complete with images etc onto the page on cargo cult claiming that the tribes had been able to create electro magnets for various uses. Peter said that he had to keep verifying his entry as the moderators of wikipedia kept sending him questions but he was able to keep them convinced for a few months that this was an actual legitmete thing. It was pretty interesting, especially as he managed to keep people convinced by choosing to insert the information into the original wiki page so that it was given more legitimacy than a page by itself.
I found the process of modelling very useful, especially as there was a limited time in which to produce objects which communicated the essence of my project. I was able to model some objects which I had been drawing for a while which started to lead into other things as well. I realised that when I boiled my project down, I was really interested in the props used for debate and how people communicate during debates.
Tutorials with Matt and Sean
Despite the fact it was post-Ball and highly amusing, this week's mentor group tutorial was pretty helpful. Mostly it was just a case of carrying on with what I'm doing but taking things further, so I need to start turning my drawings into models and working out how to implement then within debate. I like the idea of using the debating society as a platform on which I can experiment with various ideas in an attempt to affect the debate. I asked Matt about my context report as well, but he said I shouldn't really be worrying about what I'm doing because there is loads to write about. Along with a tutorial with Sean, that helped me sort a few things out. I'd been uneasy about the outline I gave in and I realised that it was for good reason as I wasn't really hitting any of the right points with it.
Now I'm a bit more focused and I'm working on planning and writing parts of it so I can give in a version of it by the first week of the holidays. Sean basically gave me a load of examples of books and also how politicians have been managed like Harold Wilson being given a pipe so his hand gestures look less aggressive and more thoughtful. He also encouraged me to look into mental manipulation, brainwashing, spin doctors etc. My project is exploding out at the moment, but the areas that open up to me, the more engaged I'm becoming with it. I have a lot to do but it's good because it's all things that I'm really interested.
Onkar Kular
On Monday Onkar Kular gave a talk, which was perfect timing as he was someone I was interested in after I'd read about him in the catalogue for Rosario's show, along with Dash MacDonald. His work is really interesting but it seemed like he didn't always follow through on things, he'd always be moving onto the next project even though he seemed to be unearthing some really fascinating stuff. Anyway, it was helpful, and I got a fair amount out of it, including the idea of the designer as a manipulator which I'm quite interested having already entered into a level of manipulation with the debate society.
Someone also asked him about how he views documentation as process within his work. I wish I'd written a little more about his answer because documentation is something I'm going to have to really actively engage in once the society gets off the ground. I made a note about performance, design [outcome], documentation and participants [I suppose here it's willing participants and unwitting participants.]. I guess they all kind of inform each other in Onkar's work, but they're four points which are really going to unpin a lot of my work over the new few months.
The Debating Society is coming along, a little slowly, but I'm meeting one of the Student Union people on Friday morning to finalise things and work out advertising, membership fees, booking rooms etc, so possibly last week of term or the first week back I'll be able to have the first meeting. Miriam has mentioned using the society as a way of debating something surrounding her own project, which would be great as topic selection is something I'm trying to work out at the moment. It's definitely a way of other people in the year getting a new spin on their own territories.
I had to fill out a form for it, which I kind of spent a few days longer than I should have doing because I wanted the answers to be really effective, until our group had a tutorial with each other, after which I finally filled it in and sent it off. These were the most important questions, the others being the society name, contacts etc.
The aims and objectives of the society are as follows:
The debating society will seek to engage people in considered and intelligent debate on a range of topics and issues. It will aim to develop the communication and rhetorical skills of it’s members as well as introducing beginners to the world of debating.
The purpose of your Society:
To promote and engage in debate both formal and informal, allowing for exploration of differing opinions and viewpoints on a wide range of issues.
Events your Society has planned:
Debates every week/every other week depending on interest expressed.
Experimenting with different styles and methods of debating
Possible visiting speakers if this can be arranged.
I wrote out my context outline which helped me a little in working out what on earth my project is actually about.
I had to fill out a form for it, which I kind of spent a few days longer than I should have doing because I wanted the answers to be really effective, until our group had a tutorial with each other, after which I finally filled it in and sent it off. These were the most important questions, the others being the society name, contacts etc.
The aims and objectives of the society are as follows:
The debating society will seek to engage people in considered and intelligent debate on a range of topics and issues. It will aim to develop the communication and rhetorical skills of it’s members as well as introducing beginners to the world of debating.
The purpose of your Society:
To promote and engage in debate both formal and informal, allowing for exploration of differing opinions and viewpoints on a wide range of issues.
Events your Society has planned:
Debates every week/every other week depending on interest expressed.
Experimenting with different styles and methods of debating
Possible visiting speakers if this can be arranged.
I wrote out my context outline which helped me a little in working out what on earth my project is actually about.
“I believe if there's any kind of God it wouldn't be in any of us. Not you
or me but just this little space in between. If there's any kind of magic
in this world it must be in the attempt of understanding someone, sharing
something. I know, it's almost impossible to succeed but who cares really?
The answer must be in the attempt.”
My context report and project focuses around discussion and debate. The
above quote was the really one of the initial points of inspiration that
my project arose from. Over the last few weeks I’ve been studying places
of debate and discussion ranging from the House of Commons to pubs and
cafés as places of rich human interaction. I’m fascinated by this idea of
the “space in between” different people where personalities, histories and
areas of expertise collide and form their own unique and fertile ground.
Physical spaces of discussion are also of interest to me, along with the
idea of formal discussion on serious subjects happening in informal
locations.
Recently, through researching what it takes to be a good debator, I’ve
become interested in Barack Obama as an example of a talented debator and
orator. As an extension of this the art of rhetoric, persuasion and
formulation of belief are all areas that I’m now beginning to expand into,
looking out the training of politicians and public speakers, the
“spectacle of debate”. Currently I’m in the process of setting up a
debating society within Goldsmiths, with the intention of having a space
of debate that I can design and control with various styles of debating,
props, seating arrangements etc. Alongside this I’d also like to return to
the less formal side of my project, further exploring the idea of pub
politics and informal discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
