I chose an excerpt of text from Lawrence Halprin’s RSVP Cycles – Creative Processes in the Human Environment to draw into dialogue with my studio practice.
Below is my analysis and notes on the excerpts from my chosen reference:
Below is the final draft of my Triangulate 02 research paper:
Reference:
Halprin, L. (1969) RSVP Cycles: Creative Processes in the Human Environment. New York: George Braziller.
The questions I began with this week was : ‘Why ask questions that we cannot answer?‘
At the end of the previous tutorial, I posed an ‘unanswerable’ question to everyone: ‘Where does knowledge come from?’
And gave each person a diagram to ‘complete’ to help them formulate a response to the question.
The responses I collected led me to think about how diagrams could be used as a framework – a metaphor – to help respond to questions that are too big to satisfyingly provide a thorough, exhaustive answer. I was really intrigued by how people ‘filled in the blanks’ – and how the diagrams provided an opening to help respond to a very difficult question. So for this week’s experiment I wanted to take this act of working out unanswerable questions with ambiguous diagrams as a way to resolve a ‘gap’.
How do you resolve the gaps provided by such large questions using the metaphorical models that diagrams imagine? How do diagrams articulate this ambiguity? In trying to work this out. I created 2 sets of cards. A set that asks questions. And another set of diagrams – to use as a prompt to answer them.
It is a beginning at formulating a game of sorts. One that encourages imagination, thought and consideration. It is an attempt at asking if there may be value on posing such questions, and pondering them. And maybe even using them as an opening to think, discuss, imagine and make.
To bring all of this thinking together. I wrote an essay, journeying my thoughts from the first question I ask – ‘where does knowledge come from?’ – to where it led me to – ‘what is the value in asking questions we cannot answer?’
This publication is an essay that compiles my thinking, my attempt at creating an analogy between diagrams and metaphors. And an attempt at diagramming responses to the ‘big’ questions I have been pondering through my research and practice this term. Below is an excerpt from the publication – it includes the full essay and selected spreads from the publication.
This week, I experimented with publications and print as a form of questioning and compiling. I think the printed format works. I used Risograph as the method of printing. I think it works in supporting the diagram style – the separation of layers and lines. However, it is a duplicator, and rather than making multiple copies of the same diagram cards – I would like to expand the set of diagram card. So perhaps for the cards itself Risograph may not be the best option. Although I can retain some of the aesthetic quality of two-colour separation that the layering has introduced to the diagrams.
For the publication: I think perhaps a deconstructed approach to the layout may work better to communicate the actual idea and inquiry. To allow the diagrams to interact more with the essay. And perhaps give shape to some of the writing. Perhaps the ‘chaptering’ while initially useful for me to make sense of how I got here and what I was attempting. But to reflect the inquiry more I might want to experiment with printed form, layout and compiling it differently. Maybe copies of this goes alongside the card game with an instruction leaflet?
In the previous term, I asked: are we encouraged to exercise the labor of consideration? To shape and interpret meaning? The question that consistently came up in my dialogues was. Why? What is the importance of this ‘labour’? To me the answer to that question was: ‘So that we can understand better the way things are. And perhaps imagine alternate ways of being.’
But why?
Because maybe tracing the origins of the way things are can reveal the limits, the exclusions of the systems we occupy. The knowledge systems. The design systems. The economic systems. Yes, I know this is too big an area for me to investigate. If I have to be more concise, it sounds like I’m asking, ‘Where does knowledge come from?’ Where do our ideas, positions, realities and knowledges come from?
Obviously many philosophers, theorists and scientists have pondered such questions and have come to their own positions, conclusions and non-conclusions. Obviously any answer to this question I can give will be inadequate. But what can I as a communication designer do with this question?
Where do I begin? Where anyone would. The library. Perhaps with the simple intention of contextualising and simplifying this question.
If you’re confused, what you’re looking at on screen [in the video] are a set of diagrams (some accurate, some fictional) alongside my limited musings on knowledge (from what I’ve been able to engage with in the last couple of weeks.)
Dealing with questions of a universal yet somewhat microscopic scale: I thought to look at Central Saint Martin’s limited collection of books on Physics; ranging from textbooks, to philosophical discourses within the subject.
First: I should acknowledge I am someone who hasn’t studied Physics in over seven years. The concepts I was once familiar with are now vague. And many concepts far beyond my A-level understanding. But I was drawn to the diagrams. Looking to them for help in making sense of some of these ideas. I was drawn to their symbolic qualities, their metaphorical qualities.
I was made aware of Jenny Holzer’s ‘Diagrams’ (1977) as I shared my ideas and work with my peers. This made me think. Is any idea original? Every path that I am going down seems to have been walked on before. But maybe somewhere down this path I will branch away and find one that is my own. But for now, I take comfort that someone else has deemed this path worthy enough to walk on.
How do these diagrams illustrate my train of thought? What new meaning do they take on when presented like this? In this context?
Through my dialogues I had been engaging in conversations surrounding the western, capitalist and patriarchal hegemonic skew within our systems. I’m left wondering, if all we have created so far has come from here, what are other ways of doing and being?
In ‘From Certainty to Uncertainty,’ David Peat (2002) makes multiple metaphorical parallels between scientific and social constructions of reality. On the theory of relativity and knowledge he says ‘the world appears different to observers moving at different speeds.’ and likens this to the limits of cultural assumptions embedded within our paths of discovery. This made me think of feminist and de-colonial perspectives of Donna Harraway & Gayatri Spivak.
Spivak critiques our constructions of historical fact by revealing the eurocentric, patriarchal and imperialist lens within the archives she uses to decode the history of the Rani of Sirmur (1985). Many have later criticised her for working within the the very same limits she is critical of – leaving her construction incomplete. Therein lies the problem I’m concerned with. What is our way out of the limits we are so embedded within?
Haraway has formulated the concept of ‘Situated Knowledges,’ in questioning objectivity or an ultimate reality. We are moving bodies, and the knowledges we inherit as we move evolve and are born out of the contexts we’re exposed to. Situating this context is important.
On quantum uncertainty Peat poses that, ‘no matter how refined our experiments may be, the ultimate reality of nature can never fully be revealed.’ (p. 15). So, as a communications designer, in this context, I am not really aiming to reveal ultimate reality. But perhaps could work towards revealing the lack of an ultimate rational, coherent reality.
Scientific experiments often create simplified models – devoid of friction, resistance and the limits of scale in order to easily describe and calculate the mechanics of the complex world we inhabit. These models are a fictional metaphor – ‘they are not so concerned with reality but rather a model of reality.’ (Peat, 2002: p. 105). I don’t know what to do with this yet, but I’m interested in this tension between representing what is and isn’t. And the gaps between reality and the smooth fictionalised conceptions and metaphors to explain reality.
I acknowledge that this question I began with – and all the sub questions – are too big for me to reach a satisfying conclusion in a few weeks. But why must that stop me from figuring out a way to respond to it? Our knowledges are bumpy. My thoughts on the subject are clunky. And these diagrammatic symbols are ambiguous. This is intentional. As designers we can in small ways find openings within these questions to reveal the limits of our individual positions – or imagine what lies beyond those limits.
Bell Hooks (2000: p. 110) in ‘Feminism Is for Everybody: Passionate Politics’ says, “To be truly visionary we have to root our imagination in our concrete reality while simultaneously imagining possibilities beyond that reality.”
So: what is the value in responding to questions you can’t answer? Perhaps it can lead me on a journey during – but not limited to – the duration of this course to learn. And imagine an evolving practice, position and a set of guiding principles as a communication designer and researcher.
Below are some scans and screenshots from physics textbooks I have found at CSM Library and Online. I looked online for NCERT / CBSE Physics textbooks – which are the textbooks I used while studying physics in high school growing up in India.
Jenny Holzer has similarly appropriated diagrams from physics and science textbooks in her work. She, re-drew hundreds of diagrams in exact replica, along with the captions, however, removed from their original context. The captions and diagrams take on a larger-than-life metaphorical shape when this is done.
On a slight tangent to this, while I did begin myself with re-drawing, I eventually separated the diagrammatic elements and created new configurations of my own. Ones that are reminiscent of physics diagrams, have similar qualities of giving shape to grand ideas, questions and thoughts but are not accurately scientific diagrams any more.
Haraway, D. (1988) ‘Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective’. Feminist Studies, 14(3). pp. 575–599.
Holzer, J. (1977) Diagrams – A collection of diagrams from many sources. [Artist Book]
Hooks, B. (2000) Feminism is for Everybody: Passionate Politics. Cambridge: South End Press. pp. 110.
Krishnamurthy, P. (2021) On Bumpiness, In Letters. [Recorded Lecture]. Available at: https://vimeo.com/theoneclubforcreativity/review/546841106/1d3121bfb4 (Accessed: 20th September 2022).
Peat, F. D. (2002) From Certainty to Uncertainty. Washington D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.
Spivak, G. (1985) ‘The Rani of Sirmur,’ History and Theory. 24(3). pp. 247-272
October 15th – Additional note:
While I initially felt this first experiment had no relation to what came later. I suppose the way they connect is that here too I attempt to test a ‘collision’ between the logical and the poetic. By trying to catalogue and systemise an analog image search responding to the surreal prose from Kafka’s ‘The Description of a Struggle.’ Similar to the diagrams [a logical framework] from later weeks attempting to give shape to [the poetic] my musings on knowledge. And attempting to use diagrams [a logical framework] to respond to questions without simple answers [the poetic].
Video Essay
Written Component
Through this unit I’ve been exploring the cyclical nature of making and interpreting meaning. I hope this exploration considers the role of the author, viewer and the subject in influencing the ways in which we make sense of information. The project is about the labour of ‘seeing’ – it interrogates the purpose of ambiguity and clarity in encouraging imagination and interpretation.
An Exercise on Seeing – Version One
In week one, I combined visual, textual and audio elements from ‘Ways of Seeing’ by John Berger and ‘Sentences on Conceptual Art’ by Sol Lewitt. I became interested in how combining seemingly unrelated material can disorient a viewer. I hoped to explore how the fragmented nature, the confusion and ambiguity intercut with brief moments of clarity can encourage the viewer to carefully look, interpret and draw new connections between different source materials.
Based on this idea, I made version one of ‘An Exercise on Seeing’. Here I combined fragmented (yet – to me – loosely associated) pieces of found footage, a voice-over narration and text-captions that interrogate how we ‘see’.
I hoped to find out how different people would ascribe meaning to seemingly unrelated materials when they are juxtaposed together. What are the connections they make? What are the thoughts, concepts and ideas this exercise can trigger? I also wanted to understand how ambiguity and disjointed-ness could encourage imagination through multiple open interpretations
Interpretation Cards – Does this change how you see?
I then asked people to view and note down their interpretations, thoughts and responses to the moving image piece.
I used the responses to create prompt cards. I imagine a viewer to receive one of these cards prior to viewing the next version of the exercise. How does the interpretation of one person prompt and influence another person’s perception? How do the perceived meanings continue to evolve through this cyclical process of making and interpreting?
An Exercise on Seeing – Version Two
The interpretation cards above subsequently influenced version two of ‘An Exercise on Seeing.’ In this version, a new sequence of found footage is added in a fourth panel. How does this new frame, based on viewer interpretation change the way this moving image piece is understood? Does it give new ways for people to form connections and make meaning?
Additionally, how do the prompt ‘interpretation cards’ influence the way new audiences see the video? How do the prompts encourage you to see in a way someone else has previously seen? Does the layout with 4 panels change the way your eyes move across the screen? Does it increase the intensity of viewing? Does it add clarity? Does it increase ambiguity?
Written Response – List of References:
Readings
Practices
The Position
The position I started to develop at the end of the previous brief was to begin to consider the labor involved in making and interpreting meaning, while considering the relationship between and the position of maker, viewer and the subject or object being perceived.
In this Unit, I’m interested in encouraging the labor of considered looking. I hope to do this by overlaying ambiguity, distortion, interpolation and other methods of manipulation onto the perceived material. How does this affect interpretation? How does this affect a viewers experience and perception? What are the multiplicity of meanings created? Who creates them? Who is right – the maker, viewer or the subject? Are there even ‘correct’ meanings? Or is a better question… What do you make of the things you perceive regardless of what is ‘correct’? What is the value of misinterpretation?
The References
The three reference I chose to respond to for this unit were, [1] Ways of Seeing Episode 4 (1972) by John Berger as televised on the BBC; [2] Sentences on Conceptual Art (1968) by Sol Lewitt; [3] I Am Sitting In A Room (1969) by Alvin Lucier.
All three of these references build on the iterations and references from the previous brief, where I was looking at [1] the ways in which we read images and text; [2] the ways in which a maker makes meaning and how a viewer may interpret, misinterpret and evolve the meanings made; and [3] the ways in which diminishing or distorting the qualities of a material/subject/object being perceived may lead to seeing/listening and understanding said material in different ways that may not be as straightforward as what is being presented.
The Iterative Responses
Using the above references as a starting point, I created three moving image iterations that interpolated parts of the contents of two or more of my chosen references.
Sentences on Seeing: Part 1
Sentences on Seeing: Part 2
Sentences on Seeing: Part 3
Through this experiment, I wanted to explore a few things.
Tutorial Feedback
Reference Suggestions
1. HyperNormalisation (2016). Directed by Adam Curtis. [Documentary Film]
2. View From The People Wall (1964) Directed by Charles and Ray Eames. [A Multichannel Film Installation]
References That Guided Further Iteration
The references below helped me contextualise my initial iterations as an inquiry into how we shape and see things. They guided my iterative process in the second week of this project towards exploring concepts of the constructions of reality and perception, the labor involved in shaping meaning and subsequently the labor involved in interpretation and sense-making.
Week Two Iterative Experiments
I began this week’s iterations guided by my references to experiment with the authoritative control held by a designer/author/director over the construction of a narrative and the relationship this ascribed meaning has to a viewers interpretation.
In my iterations I manipulate and obscure viewer perception through, captioning, distorting, repetition and varied sequencing using imagery extracted from unedited documentary footage.
Using the initial 100 iterations, I added 20 more captioned stills – here the images are clear yet the captions are totally unreliable, useless or misleading.
Based on the feedback from the previous week, I wanted to focus on the form, sequencing and narrative potential these 120 iterations hold.
With these 120 image-text combinations, I first created a grid or graphic key, which maps out the sequence of images and their corresponding captions. Each image and corresponding caption are sorted, tagged and coded in a sequence.
I used this graphic key to create a collection of iterative printed publications using different permutations and patterns of the image-text combinations to create multiple distinct narratives.
The publications consist of multiple versions of a singular narrative made up of images and captions that vary in levels of clarity and accuracy.
View all publication iterations through the links below:
Unreliable Narratives: 1
Unreliable Narratives: 2
Unreliable Narratives: 3
Unreliable Narratives: 4
Unreliable Narratives: 5
Unreliable Narratives: 6
Unreliable Narratives: 7
Unreliable Narratives: 8
Unreliable Narratives: 9
Unreliable Narratives: 10
Unreliable Narratives: 11
Unreliable Narratives: 12
Some Questions I Wanted My Iterations To Explore…
How might my work embody the subjective nature of engaging with difficult information? How do we make sense of information? What is the relationship between maker’s intent and viewer’s interpretation? What is the relationship between image, text, sequence and meaning? Can these relationships be challenged?
Feedback Notes