Author: Rakshita Arvind

The Starting Point

For my starting point, or ‘Iteration Zero’ to base my 100 iterations on, I chose an unexplored thread in my Methods of Translating project. In the first week of the project, I obscured some raw documentary footage and added captioning to guide how a viewer might interpret the obscured footage. However, in further iterations, I did not focus on the idea of an authoritative voice and rather focussed on the audio visual form of a memory.

The 100 Iterations

For these new iterations, I chose a different portion of the footage. I extrapolated 20 stills from this portion of the footage. My iterations were a repetition of the act of captioning 5 versions of successively diminished versions of the extracted still images. As the quality of the image decreased, the captions become more detailed, descriptive and accurate. This resulted in five versions of each of the 20 stills with varying degrees of clarity of the caption and image.

I chose to print them as an unbound set of pages, as I wanted to present them laid out in a grid that showcases the chronology of the stills (vertical) and the diminishing clarity of image and increasing clarity of caption (horizontal).

The project took inspiration from the Wikileaks Silk Scarf created by Metahaven as a starting point, while also making a creative leap to explore a wider contexts and positions such as –  design as a tool for critical expression, the different kinds of ‘value’ that can be created by graphic design practice (in and out of commerce) and the relationship this has to identity, activism, resource, skill, labour and environment in a post-growth context. 

---

• 

• 

---

We created an Instagram account to house all of the experiments from the two weeks, including face filters and prompts for discussion. It allows for these various themes and positions to be explored through a cohesive channel.

---

We were also interested in the idea of critical value of Graphic Design. What value could designers produce outside of commerce? Value that isn’t monetarily quantifiable? Could we prompt a discussion about this? And could this discussion have value in the sharing of multiple perspectives and ideas?

We created a face filter to prompt this discussion, hoping to be able to document and archive the responses, which may have some critical value (or not, this is open to critique too).

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Similar to Metahaven’s work with Wikileaks – this project attempts to merge ‘critical graphic design’ with somewhat more conventional practices of graphic design such as branding and image making as well as incorporating popular current digital aesthetics of NFT’s and Instagram filters.

Feedback: How can this be developed further? 

It would have been nice to see the filters and the instagram account in full use. If the platform had already been in use / began to be circulated to an audience that would be able to open the project up for feedback and critique itself. 

The project does explore such a broad line of inquiry, while it does work in the context of the Instagram account to explore a multiplicity of ideas, how can its articulation be made clearer? Can there be more context added to the actual platform itself for it to be fully understood without our presentation voice over?

These experiments are a beginning in the process of inquiry into these very big themes. It would be interesting to see what results the project could yield and benefit from with more feedback from those that interact with the social media platform and the effectiveness of such platforms as a tool for critical communication. How might we change how it is used, the questions that are asked based on the way people interact with it? How might people outside of the discipline of graphic design respond? And how would the response from those that interact with the project change, progress and push the project forward?

The project took inspiration from the Wikileaks Silk Scarf created by Metahaven as a starting point, while also making a creative leap to explore the wider context of methods for ‘Critical Graphic Design’ to develop as a line of inquiry.

As a group, we decided to begin with experiments that would explore different ways in which graphic design practice could communicate critique; circulated through zines, posters and social platforms.

We explored popular aesthetics with print and digital design as a starting point for our iterative experiments and translations, while including elements from the original scarf.

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

When ‘translating’ the scarf into a digital medium, it was important to think of the ‘value’ of the digital asset created. As the proceeds from selling these scarves went towards funding WikiLeaks, the ‘value’ produced was essential to preserve.

This lead us to explore the concept of NFT’s, that ascribe value to digital assets, while incorporating the 3D and Pixel art aesthetics that are popular NFT trends.

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

In doing so, and through the lens of questioning critical design, it is important to note that both the Fashion industry and NFT / Crypto space are known for ethical concerns regarding sustainability and exploitation. This also lead us to ask the questions, are these uses of design for critique effective? Do they fulfil a purpose? Is the monetary value created by a piece of design the only way for it to fulfil a purpose? What does it mean to be critical as a designer?

This wider context and discussion was something we wanted to prompt through this project. How might we prompt a discussion about these questions?

• 

• 

• 

We also explored print as a method of circulating critique & information through a zine and poster:

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Based on the feedback from our tutorial, we decided to focus on the digital methods of translation. And to further explore the role of social platforms and their various tools to communicate critique. We were also further interested in exploring design as a tool for critical expression, the different kinds of ‘value’ that can be created by graphic design practice (in and out of commerce) and the relationship this has to identity, activism, resource, skill, labour and environment in a post-growth context. 

Object #1
WikiLeaks Scarf, 2011
Metahaven

The first object we chose was the scarf created by Metahaven in collaboration with WikiLeaks to help fund the organisation’s work. The scarf is made of silk with a graphic pattern. It is translucent and fragile, draped on a mannequin – ‘simultaneously revealing and concealing’ the mannequin. It is meant to reflect ideas of transparency within our governments and information networks.

It responds to contemporary issues surrounding data leaks, freedom of speech, right to information, surveillance states, transparency within politics and governments etc. So it does say something about our culture, but interestingly it also tells us how present day artists and designers express their critique / dissent.

It has been placed in the ‘Data and Communication’ section which was right alongside the ‘Consumption & Identity’ section. The inclusion of this object highlights the use of commodities, fashion items and products and their relationship to the need for funding and activism, especially under a capitalist system.

Some questions this raised for us: does this form of critique work? Is this type of work truly critical of our culture? Even if the scarf itself is not a piece of critical communication – the proceeds do directly fund a cause, and it still is a physical representation of how designers use their skills to express critique.


Object #2
Stereo System (1983)
Ron Arad

The second object we chose was the Stereo System by Ron Arad (1983). The most interesting aspect of this object is how it aims to question the notions of perfection, form and function. And the use of materials that may be considered inconvenient or counterintuitive – it’s heavy, made of concrete and doesn’t concern itself with the shackles of practicality which is a rebellion/subversion against all the usual ‘design 101’ philosophies. It has also been placed alongside posters and images that speak about labor movements, which makes you think about the way goods, products and appliances are really produced – are people being exploited for perfection and convenience? When you buy a stereo system, what are all the different components and complexities of those involved in creating them? Are they being treated fairly?

Object #3
Handmade Toaster
The Toaster Project (2009)
Thomas Thwaites

This object was placed in the Sustainability & Subversion section. For me the most interesting part about this object was the focus on materiality and replication. In an age of virtually infinite replication and production of goods and products, this toaster is a cheaply made replica or mould using melted plastics.

It makes you think about the act of producing more, the actual resources required and the true cost (to the planet, to the labor force) of making things cheaply, quickly and virtually infinitely.

I think it holds a lot of potential for visual exploration to think about imperfect / handmade replication, resources and materiality.

I chose Blender as my ‘tool’ to iterate with. I have no prior experience with this software and am using the iterative process as an opportunity to learn and observe the function and purpose of the software. I am most interested in exploring the fact that it does not have certain constraints that physical space, material and resources may impose; but has a set of its own parameters and computational limitations. 

3D software is complex. It includes a multiplicity of tools and features with complicated names that don’t necessarily fully explain their resulting functions. And unlike its 2D counterparts, 3D rendering requires more computational power to accurately preview changes and adjustments applied. This makes intuitive use on a basic laptop tedious. 

This constraint led me to systematically explore the results from using a particular tool in varying intensities. For my first set of iterations in week 1, I chose a set of ‘texture and material’ functions to successively adjust and iterate to create abstract sequences that document this exploration.

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

The process began to remind me of working with a film camera for the first time in a photography studio; however, without the worry of wasting film. This approach made using the software much less intimidating; helping me overcome my unfamiliarity with the tool. 

My iterative process led me to the enquiry; how might 3D rendering on Blender parallel a photographic practice?

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

I also began to utilise the virtual camera settings more consciously. And to take this idea further, I began to think about elements such as replication, symmetry and the lack of constraints this fictional space can offer.

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Feedback Notes:

The exploration of my tool became more focussed as I started pursuing the approach of understanding Blender as a virtual photography studio. What I might be able to do on Blender that I wouldn’t be able to within a studio? The iterative process led me to explore the limits of blender along with its potentials.

The potentials of space, materials, lights, repetition and the parameters of the virtual lens worked to make a start on my experimentation following this line of enquiry.

A lot of the early stages just involved learning and gathering my reflections and observations on what it was that I wanted to explore with the software. The earlier tests with the software, while they helped me familiarise with the interface of Blender, were not guided by a line of enquiry yet.

Perhaps I can choose an existing image to re-interpret through the virtual camera and studio on Blender. I can play with the idea of a fictional and surreal space a lot more. On looking at the week 3 work, I could be pushing the limits of ‘reality’ further. Push further on the idea of the lack of physical constraints.

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Useful References:

1. Life magazine. Sensationalises the mundane. Through typography, layout, image and text. The purpose is to create entertainment value for readers.
   
2. Chris Marker – La Jete (1962). Film about time told through images, that has then been transposed into a publication – to mimick temporal nature of the film along with the subtitles.