Whelp, scrap what I said in the last post. The main conclusion from my latest tutorial was that I had kind of jumped on a context because I wanted to be certain what I was doing, in order to to say to Matt "this is what I'm doing". However, it was veering off course from my original ideas, a point which made a lot of sense, especially I'd realised that morning that the context mentioned below would open up a whole new area of research and work, going into inter-personal relationships, marriage counselling etc and I'm not really into that. My project is more about abstract discussion rather that the personal relationships between those involved in the discussion. Even the subject matter is secondary to the actual discussion itself.
So he suggested sticking with the confessional booth idea but developing it so it becomes something of a public services. It could be taken to a political march or into a town centre or to a tourist landmark and used to instigate discussions between people inside the booth which could be then recorded, storing these opinions, ideas and discussions. So political parties, organisations and businesses could use it was a way of canvassing the public's opinions.
These are the notes which make more sense with the explanation above
Debate relevant to the context - look for topics and find context or vice versa [somewhere between structure and cue cards]
maybe it's a way of groups canvassing opinion on on issue
e.g. set up in Trafalgar Square for discussion on public space
like the debate society but within a structure and without all the stiff ceremony
How is it recorded?
Does it become a service?
How are topics raised inside the structure - outside input? - does it become a performance?
do you have a provoker on one side and a member of the public on the other or two members of the public on each side?
He also thought I should get this involved in the Goldsmiths stand at the Milan Furniture Fair, placing it in the space for the daily performances/instillations they're organising. So I have to work out how this is going to work and submit it. Luckily it is all part of the direct development for my project.
Now I have a big to-do list to get stuck into but it's all good as I feel really excited about my project again.
Not a manifesto or a brief
Following just over a week of prototyping I still feel haven’t produced enough but I know what I am going to make for my final show. So that is progress. Talking to Ruth and Luke earlier this week really helped me sort my ideas out so I’m going forwards with the confessional booths of a kind. It started from the confessional booth and this sentence I’d written in my sketchbook at some point; “ways of mediating conflicts [discussions] for people who struggle to voice their opinions.”
So the way or device for this would be the confessional booths. Obviously they might not literally be booths but this is where I’m taking it from but at the moment it seems to be some kind of barrier to limit physical contact, verbal communication, which allows for written or typed communication instead. The ‘booths’ allow for a certain amount of abstraction from the situation, and anonymity in the same way internet or text [in both cases speech is avoided] does, letting people express their opinions more fully than they might otherwise. so then there are a lot of questions to answer, which will [hopefully] work out through prototyping and testing. It needs a context, almost crertainly the home for people who live together, or a series of context or possibly a series of three [?] similar contexts where different concepts and realisations can be utilised. Public and/or private? It raises quite a few questions:
Is it a device which is bought into a space which changes it into this “confessional area” or a box-like structure which is a space in itself?
Who goes?
Why do they want to use it?
What do they get out of it?
Does it just begin a debate or control it or both?
Public or private or both?
Typing or writing?
Verbal or no or is there a certain point where speech comes in?
Certain rules or rules become inherent in design?
Is it a system or a service with an object?
So the way or device for this would be the confessional booths. Obviously they might not literally be booths but this is where I’m taking it from but at the moment it seems to be some kind of barrier to limit physical contact, verbal communication, which allows for written or typed communication instead. The ‘booths’ allow for a certain amount of abstraction from the situation, and anonymity in the same way internet or text [in both cases speech is avoided] does, letting people express their opinions more fully than they might otherwise. so then there are a lot of questions to answer, which will [hopefully] work out through prototyping and testing. It needs a context, almost crertainly the home for people who live together, or a series of context or possibly a series of three [?] similar contexts where different concepts and realisations can be utilised. Public and/or private? It raises quite a few questions:
Is it a device which is bought into a space which changes it into this “confessional area” or a box-like structure which is a space in itself?
Who goes?
Why do they want to use it?
What do they get out of it?
Does it just begin a debate or control it or both?
Public or private or both?
Typing or writing?
Verbal or no or is there a certain point where speech comes in?
Certain rules or rules become inherent in design?
Is it a system or a service with an object?
thoughts from morrisons
Internet as mediator/facilitator of debate = anonymity and writing allowing for more freedom for those with confidence problems = creating physical anonymity = confessional booths = what else?
Gradual exposure? "12 steps"
Gradual exposure? "12 steps"
other random prototypes
Eye contact glasses
[very rudimentary] Communication without eye contact
Branding toffee [didn't have three to put in the packet]:
cue cards
[very rudimentary] Communication without eye contact
Branding toffee [didn't have three to put in the packet]:
cue cards
extending the hood
Worked on a rough prototype today, around getting a bike, talking to Tomas about photographs for the catalogue, waiting until the union shop would let me steal loads of cardboard and a careers meeting. It was an extension of the material hoods I'd made previously. The boxes on either end are meant to show only the mouth of the other person, so eye contact is not necessary. Need to make a good film of it in use and take some better photographs but this is stage one. Emily suggested I look at confessional booths which is a great idea and stage two...
I've realised that my panic over Rosario's tutorial was unfounded. My project is about discussion and debate, how this creates 'newness', a broadening of horizons and how the friction of discussions leads to increased creativity.
If you have non-participants in a discussion or people who hang back or equally if you have people who dominate, you lose part of the richness as there is a limited input. As Emily said when I spoke to her about it, sometimes she thinks she has a good point but can't say it, so it's about the how not the what.
I found this website called ChangingMinds.org which has a section on how to interrupt people.
This is one:
"Description
Interrupt by clarifying what they have said, testing your understanding.
Tell them that you do not quite understand what they are saying and repeat what they have said -- then move to what you want to say.
It is usually better to paraphrase what they have said, rather than exactly mirror them, although using their words is often effective.
After you have clarified, you can pause to let them agree, but beware of them taking control again.
Example
Ah! So you want to open a new store? Is that right? Well I have been thinking about that too, and I was wondering...
Can I just check something? -- it seems like you are saying that we should leave tomorrow. Well, I've been thinking about this and...
Sorry, I don't understand, do you mean that Simon is responsible? Well, to some extent he may be, but...
Discussion
Expressing confusion effectively says 'I haven't a clue what you are saying, so you might as well stop.'
Clarifying what they say shows respect for the person and interest in what they are saying. This sets up an exchange dynamic whereby they feel obliged to show respect in return by listening to you."
It mentions an "exchange dynamic" which is something that I'm quite intrigued by, how people form an exchange through balance i.e. you listen to me, I'll listen to you or even conversely, you interrupt me, I can interrupt you. I think I touched on this with in the podium ideas and the toffee or there was an element of it anyway. In the case of my project direction it's about how the quiet, shyer people balance the louder, forceful ones, so I guess it becomes two fold in encouraging quiter people to interrupt and louder people to take a step back. Or working from one angle; giving the shyer people tools/objects/techniques/spaces to feel as though they have control and a stake in the discussion.
I really need to properly start making though, instead of just jumping around between areas of research and thinking.
If you have non-participants in a discussion or people who hang back or equally if you have people who dominate, you lose part of the richness as there is a limited input. As Emily said when I spoke to her about it, sometimes she thinks she has a good point but can't say it, so it's about the how not the what.
I found this website called ChangingMinds.org which has a section on how to interrupt people.
This is one:
"Description
Interrupt by clarifying what they have said, testing your understanding.
Tell them that you do not quite understand what they are saying and repeat what they have said -- then move to what you want to say.
It is usually better to paraphrase what they have said, rather than exactly mirror them, although using their words is often effective.
After you have clarified, you can pause to let them agree, but beware of them taking control again.
Example
Ah! So you want to open a new store? Is that right? Well I have been thinking about that too, and I was wondering...
Can I just check something? -- it seems like you are saying that we should leave tomorrow. Well, I've been thinking about this and...
Sorry, I don't understand, do you mean that Simon is responsible? Well, to some extent he may be, but...
Discussion
Expressing confusion effectively says 'I haven't a clue what you are saying, so you might as well stop.'
Clarifying what they say shows respect for the person and interest in what they are saying. This sets up an exchange dynamic whereby they feel obliged to show respect in return by listening to you."
It mentions an "exchange dynamic" which is something that I'm quite intrigued by, how people form an exchange through balance i.e. you listen to me, I'll listen to you or even conversely, you interrupt me, I can interrupt you. I think I touched on this with in the podium ideas and the toffee or there was an element of it anyway. In the case of my project direction it's about how the quiet, shyer people balance the louder, forceful ones, so I guess it becomes two fold in encouraging quiter people to interrupt and louder people to take a step back. Or working from one angle; giving the shyer people tools/objects/techniques/spaces to feel as though they have control and a stake in the discussion.
I really need to properly start making though, instead of just jumping around between areas of research and thinking.
.....
I had a tutorial with Rosario today and discussed the conclusion I’d come to. She said that she didn’t think that my project was there and as I’d only managed to have two studio debates showed that it had pretty much failed. On top of that, debate and discussion already happens in the pub so where would my project be and what would do? What did I envision my show being? That kind of threw me, as although it was something I’d considered, I figured if I kept looking I’d find a way into the project.
Instead she suggested that I create tactics/techniques/objects to make people’s voices heard, stop interruptions and stop people being interrupted. I would start as myself, and then apply to others. So basically I need to come up with at least ten ways of people interrupting conversations or stopping other interrupting them and apply it to different contexts. Rosario mentioned Margaret Thatcher who changed her breathing techniques where she took a breath in the middle of the sentence rather than at the end so that when she was in Parliament nobody could interrupt her. It gives me a clear project and outcomes which is good, and it was an area I was dabbling in but it makes me feel pretty shit about myself as a designer right now.
Instead she suggested that I create tactics/techniques/objects to make people’s voices heard, stop interruptions and stop people being interrupted. I would start as myself, and then apply to others. So basically I need to come up with at least ten ways of people interrupting conversations or stopping other interrupting them and apply it to different contexts. Rosario mentioned Margaret Thatcher who changed her breathing techniques where she took a breath in the middle of the sentence rather than at the end so that when she was in Parliament nobody could interrupt her. It gives me a clear project and outcomes which is good, and it was an area I was dabbling in but it makes me feel pretty shit about myself as a designer right now.
Facebook status debate/argument
I screen grabbed this today from Facebook. The status turned up on my main page and I followed it through there. Raises some interesting questions about the public and private debate and changing a debate into something where anyone can join in even if the instigator is not able to accept the nature of the media they are using.
more debate toffee/sweets
Drumstick
Luke: 01:27
Ruth: 01:41
Emily: 01:43
Average: 1:37
Refresher's bar
Luke: 0:48.02
Ruth: 1:07:02
Jack: oo:35
Stacey: 01:56:9
Emily: 00:48
Average: 0.78
Three toffees in one
Jack: 03:04
Emily: 01:25
Ruth: 02:25
Stacey: 02:48
Luke: 01:40
Average: 2.08
25g of foods
Celery: 01:25.5
Apple: 01:53.3
Muffin: 01:36.8
Doritos: 05:39.8
HobNobs: 01:38.2
Toffee: 08:21.4 [1 = 01:15.2]
Peanuts: 03:46.6
Lemon: 00:50.5
Licorice: 03:50.7
Soreen bread: 01:40.3
Luke: 01:27
Ruth: 01:41
Emily: 01:43
Average: 1:37
Refresher's bar
Luke: 0:48.02
Ruth: 1:07:02
Jack: oo:35
Stacey: 01:56:9
Emily: 00:48
Average: 0.78
Three toffees in one
Jack: 03:04
Emily: 01:25
Ruth: 02:25
Stacey: 02:48
Luke: 01:40
Average: 2.08
25g of foods
Celery: 01:25.5
Apple: 01:53.3
Muffin: 01:36.8
Doritos: 05:39.8
HobNobs: 01:38.2
Toffee: 08:21.4 [1 = 01:15.2]
Peanuts: 03:46.6
Lemon: 00:50.5
Licorice: 03:50.7
Soreen bread: 01:40.3
time to stop messing around
I want to design devices and systems to instigate and mediate debatediscussions in pubs
Why? I’m interested in the spaces created by people coming together to discuss and debate. I’m intrigued by the friction this creates and how this generates newsness and facilitates creativity, a broadening of horizons.
Why the pub? The pub is a unique platform for these kinds of discussions. It is a social leveller and brings together many different people from many different walks of life. It is a unique place of interaction and communication with others, with it’s own set of rules and etiquette. I’m interested in how people interact differently in a pub than anywhere, in how serious and lighter subjects can be dealt with almost in the same breath.
Why? I’m interested in the spaces created by people coming together to discuss and debate. I’m intrigued by the friction this creates and how this generates newsness and facilitates creativity, a broadening of horizons.
Why the pub? The pub is a unique platform for these kinds of discussions. It is a social leveller and brings together many different people from many different walks of life. It is a unique place of interaction and communication with others, with it’s own set of rules and etiquette. I’m interested in how people interact differently in a pub than anywhere, in how serious and lighter subjects can be dealt with almost in the same breath.
A pub is...
…"the only kind of public building used by large numbers of ordinary people where their thoughts and actions are not being in some way arranged for them; in the other kinds of public building they are the audiences, watchers of political, religious, dramatic, cinematic, instructional or athletic spectacles. But within the four walls of the pub, once a man has bought or been bought his glass of beer, he has entered an environment in which he is a participator rather than a spectator."
stuck
stuck
This is a long time not to update a blog. After the contextual report I was feeling pretty shit about everything to do with my project and the prototype presentation didn’t really do much to raise how I felt about it nor did the debate society meeting. Pretty frustrated right now.
Anyway. I’ve been talking, thinking and drawing, not necessarily in that order, trying to work out where my project is going, what’s trying to achieve etc. I keep working on drawings of ideas but when it comes to making them I start to doubt their purpose, whether they will help me, whether they really deal with the idea of my project, which is kind of redundant anyway as I’m still working out the answers to those questions.
For the prototype presentation I got 54 for my mark which is a 2:2. I guess that’s not too bad. Some of the notes I got...
How are you going to give people subjects to debate?
What stimulates a debate?
Need to see what [the debate society] teaches you
Objects to find in a pub to promote debate
Quite a way to go - are you designing a ‘kit’ for debaters? Could it go further than this?
Context - where are you designing for? debate society, pub, speaker’s corner, impromptu [mobile], dinner party
How to generate subject matter
Tidying and arguments over banalities as ways of practising debates
Banal arguments that are presented to a 3rd party
Matt pointed out that I really need to work on my project identification, and really define what my project is, whether it’s giving people a voice who don’t have one, a system and object for formal debating, pub politics etc. He also suggested that if I get too frustrated I should set myself a mini project and should also leave the college.
I started looking up the definitions for debate, discussion and argument which helped me realise where I was placing my project, at the overlapping point of debate and discussion:
Debate: a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
an argument about a particular subject, esp. one in which many people are involved : the national debate on abortion | there has been much debate about prices.
verb [ trans. ]
argue about (a subject), esp. in a formal manner : the board debated his proposal | the date when people first entered America is hotly debated.
[with clause ] consider a possible course of action in one's mind before reaching a decision : he debated whether he should leave the matter alone or speak to her.
ORIGIN Middle English : via Old French from Latin dis- (expressing reversal) + battere ‘to fight.’
Discussion: the action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas : the proposals are not a blueprint but ideas for discussion | the specific content of the legislation was under discussion.
a conversation or debate about a certain topic : discussions about environmental improvement programs.
a detailed treatment of a particular topic in speech or writing.
ORIGIN: Middle English (denoting judicial examination): via Old French from late Latin discussio(n-), from discutere ‘investigate’ (see discuss ).
argument: an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one : I've had an argument with my father | heated arguments over public spending | there was some argument about the decision.
a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong : there is a strong argument for submitting a formal appeal | [with clause ] he rejected the argument that keeping the facility would be costly.
ORIGIN Middle English (in the sense [process of reasoning] ): via Old French from Latin argumentum, from arguere ‘make clear, prove, accuse.’
****
I went up to Speaker’s Corner on Sunday, and on the way had a lot of time to think about my project. I don’t know why it helped specifically but getting out of the studio was good. so this is what I wrote while I was on the bus... it’s a bit lame sounding but it all goes towards me finding a way through.
“It’s really about promoting debate and discussion to see what comes out of it. Maybe ‘see’ is the wrong word but I’m fascinated by the ideas that can be produced by people coming together and the pub is an excellent area for that. -> Governments ban free speech as a way of control -> deviance from standard rules/society/expectations --> installations in public spaces have a similar quality.”
I went the Montague Arms with my brother and the conversation turned to my project, and a lot of the things he was saying seemed to be what was in my head but I was having trouble defining and saying out loud. He said that “pubs are the great social leveller” and that how people generally “talk in a different way about different things” when they’re in pubs but pointed out that my problem comes in how I distil this into a project and into a way of designing which is very true and definitely an issue I’ve been struggling with. People have discussions and debates in pubs anyway, so what is the point in me intervening or getting involved? What is my project going to do?
I suppose in a way every conversation I have with someone that furthers my project or every conversation I take part in or hear that pushes someone else’s project forwards is my project. It’s a case of finding my place in that and finding the role of design in it which I think is what I really need to push. Fun times.
This is a long time not to update a blog. After the contextual report I was feeling pretty shit about everything to do with my project and the prototype presentation didn’t really do much to raise how I felt about it nor did the debate society meeting. Pretty frustrated right now.
Anyway. I’ve been talking, thinking and drawing, not necessarily in that order, trying to work out where my project is going, what’s trying to achieve etc. I keep working on drawings of ideas but when it comes to making them I start to doubt their purpose, whether they will help me, whether they really deal with the idea of my project, which is kind of redundant anyway as I’m still working out the answers to those questions.
For the prototype presentation I got 54 for my mark which is a 2:2. I guess that’s not too bad. Some of the notes I got...
How are you going to give people subjects to debate?
What stimulates a debate?
Need to see what [the debate society] teaches you
Objects to find in a pub to promote debate
Quite a way to go - are you designing a ‘kit’ for debaters? Could it go further than this?
Context - where are you designing for? debate society, pub, speaker’s corner, impromptu [mobile], dinner party
How to generate subject matter
Tidying and arguments over banalities as ways of practising debates
Banal arguments that are presented to a 3rd party
Matt pointed out that I really need to work on my project identification, and really define what my project is, whether it’s giving people a voice who don’t have one, a system and object for formal debating, pub politics etc. He also suggested that if I get too frustrated I should set myself a mini project and should also leave the college.
I started looking up the definitions for debate, discussion and argument which helped me realise where I was placing my project, at the overlapping point of debate and discussion:
Debate: a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
an argument about a particular subject, esp. one in which many people are involved : the national debate on abortion | there has been much debate about prices.
verb [ trans. ]
argue about (a subject), esp. in a formal manner : the board debated his proposal | the date when people first entered America is hotly debated.
[with clause ] consider a possible course of action in one's mind before reaching a decision : he debated whether he should leave the matter alone or speak to her.
ORIGIN Middle English : via Old French from Latin dis- (expressing reversal) + battere ‘to fight.’
Discussion: the action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas : the proposals are not a blueprint but ideas for discussion | the specific content of the legislation was under discussion.
a conversation or debate about a certain topic : discussions about environmental improvement programs.
a detailed treatment of a particular topic in speech or writing.
ORIGIN: Middle English (denoting judicial examination): via Old French from late Latin discussio(n-), from discutere ‘investigate’ (see discuss ).
argument: an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one : I've had an argument with my father | heated arguments over public spending | there was some argument about the decision.
a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong : there is a strong argument for submitting a formal appeal | [with clause ] he rejected the argument that keeping the facility would be costly.
ORIGIN Middle English (in the sense [process of reasoning] ): via Old French from Latin argumentum, from arguere ‘make clear, prove, accuse.’
****
I went up to Speaker’s Corner on Sunday, and on the way had a lot of time to think about my project. I don’t know why it helped specifically but getting out of the studio was good. so this is what I wrote while I was on the bus... it’s a bit lame sounding but it all goes towards me finding a way through.
“It’s really about promoting debate and discussion to see what comes out of it. Maybe ‘see’ is the wrong word but I’m fascinated by the ideas that can be produced by people coming together and the pub is an excellent area for that. -> Governments ban free speech as a way of control -> deviance from standard rules/society/expectations --> installations in public spaces have a similar quality.”
I went the Montague Arms with my brother and the conversation turned to my project, and a lot of the things he was saying seemed to be what was in my head but I was having trouble defining and saying out loud. He said that “pubs are the great social leveller” and that how people generally “talk in a different way about different things” when they’re in pubs but pointed out that my problem comes in how I distil this into a project and into a way of designing which is very true and definitely an issue I’ve been struggling with. People have discussions and debates in pubs anyway, so what is the point in me intervening or getting involved? What is my project going to do?
I suppose in a way every conversation I have with someone that furthers my project or every conversation I take part in or hear that pushes someone else’s project forwards is my project. It’s a case of finding my place in that and finding the role of design in it which I think is what I really need to push. Fun times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
