CONSEQUENCES
CONTROL
CONVENIENT
ECLIPSE
EMBEDDED
EVERYDAY LIFE
HABIT
INTERWOVEN
NEUTRAL TOOLS
RESIST
I do not remember how I first discovered Langdon Winner's article ‘Do artifacts have politics?’, but even before I start reading, I have a strong feeling that it will be relevant and important to me. The title immediately makes me want to answer yes! Artifacts do most definitely have politics!, and I look forward to Langdon Winner (who describes himself as author, teacher and political activist who explores on a range of political issues, especially those that involve the interweaving of technology and society) serving me convincing arguments that support this claim.
I begin, as I usually do when I read a text, to underline what I think is most interesting and write notes in the margin. Something inside me murmurs; is this an escape? A quest for security in the already existing rather than having to explore and convey my own ideas? Am I once again on my way to reading text that can help strengthen the theoretical grounding in my project but which I do not quite know how I can link to the artistic and exploratory work? It feels like theory and creativity is separated; as the logical and analytical become opposed to the intuitive, and that the interplay between my own and others' thoughts and ideas has not found a rhythm and flow.
How can I bring the theoretical and creative processes, both of which are important in artistic research, closer together and make them grow by and with each other? And how can the relationship between one's own (or: my own) and others' ideas and point of view become a driving force towards new insights and knowledge?
Or: I want to bring the theoretical and creative processes, both of which are important in artistic research, closer together and make them grow by and with each other. And I want to explore how the relationship between one's own (or: my own) and others' ideas and point of view become a driving force towards new insights and knowledge.)
The times I manage to get carried away in this process where the logical, analytical part of the brain almost seamlessly intertwine with the intuitive, playful, exploratory, non-judgmental and liberated part of the brain and the rest of the body, I become so happy. In this process I make discoveries my logical, analytical hemisphere would not have managed without the interaction with the more frivolous, energetic, gut-based, experimental fearless side of me. This is therefore something I want to explore more deeply.
This fanzine is about the symbiotic relationship between theory and creative practice and process in my PhD project; how I can work intuitively and visually with theoretical and analytical and vis a verca (how I can work theoretically and analytically with the intuitive and visual). The fanzines you now hold in your hands can therefore both be seen as an exploration in itself and a dissemination / documentation of this process. Theory and practice is in my eyes not separate opposites but on the contrary mutually interdependent and trapped in a kind of hate / love relationship. Precisely this interaction between the intuitive and structured / analytical process is in my eyes what artistic research is all about.
Reflections on the intertwining of creative and theoretical work in my PhD project
As a research fellow in the arts, I feel a need to unite creative work with theoretical work. I read and write a lot in the process and would like to find ways to link the development of my own thoughts and reflections related to what I read with my creative, artistic, practical work. I enjoy putting my own thoughts up against others; build on and be inspired by what others have done and at the same time think differently and challenge or nuance accepted truths through my own work. I have tried this in the way I work with the anthropologist Tim Ingold’s texts pretending to have a dialogue with him about various aspects he addresses in the book ‘Making’ and exploring in what ways my own work relates to his and how I think differently. This is a method I will continue to explore, and the idea is to work more on the text and add my reflections after having read his other book ‘Lines’, and then send this to Ingold and hear his response to this. This is one method that is in line with my thoughts on how the design field develops and matures by discussing and reflecting collectively. I see design as a social, collective field, and one that also builds on and extends towards other fields; the boundaries between archeology, art, anthropology, philosophy and design are not so clear.
This dialogue method helps me develop my own ideas and spark reflections, but so far, I have not been able to find a way to connect this into the creative work. When I found the article 'Do Artifacts have politics?' by Langdon Winner (footnote: Langdon Winner describes himself as' author, teacher and political activist who explores on a range of political issues, especially those that involve the interweaving of technology and society. His home base is The Department of Science and Technology Studies at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York. ') and realized that it is interesting in relation to my project (it deals with how things shape us as humans and give examples of how some things / systems / artifacts have an inherent policy in them while others more randomly have political and social consequences), I did as I usually do; I started underlining what I found most important in the text and noted key words in the margin. But how can I take this further and push it from a theoretical level into my creative work? How to work visually, creatively and artistically with theory and text? What methods can I use to close the gap between theory and practice in the project?
My job as a research fellow (in design) is to help develop the field, challenge the boundaries of the field and contribute new knowledge. Working in academia is about building on existing knowledge and expand it; challenge accepted truths and contribute to new insights. Since it is an artistic doctorate I am working on, the artistic work is central. It is more than a theoretical thesis. I see it as a great benefit to work this way. As a researcher I can sample, borrow and stretch others' thoughts and ideas, interpret and re-interpret, distort and play, misunderstand and understand in my own way and sometimes take things out of context and put them together in new ways to see what happens. This is a creative process similar to the collage and bricolage technique. When I read a text, such as L. Winner's article, some ideas resonate with my own thoughts, while others do not feel as relevant. When I underline what I think is most important in the text, I choose, I make a selection. When I return to the text after a while and only read what I have underlined, I might interpret its meaning in another way than if I had read the whole text again; when something is taken out of its context, it can take on a new meaning. I observe the difference in whether I have selected an entire paragraph or just a few words in a sentence. I also observe that it is more likely that I chose parts of the text that agrees with my own thoughts, and happily look away from what does not strengthen my own thoughts. There is a selection going on and it is by no means an objective process.
Can I, in an artistic / visual / sensory way, investigate what it means to borrow / build on / twist other people's work / text / ideas and use this in my own work?
I start testing it out: I start by physically cutting out with a knife what I have emphasized as most important from Winner´s text. I experience it as an embodiment of research; both to understand by doing it physically instead of digitally, making it more cumbersome for myself than doing simple copy/paste on computer, but also to work visually and link theory, reading and writing closer to the creative process. (Katrine Køster Holst and Camilla Bruerberg are examples of research fellows who have worked with the materialization of text). While I do this, I write reflections that appear along the way, as a meta-text that is not about the content of the text, I work with but about the process I am in, the thoughts that pops up. I discover that I want to cultivate the idea of taking something out of its original context but still credit the original, as an honest, transparent way to work, and do this by preserving the text where I have cut out what I think is most important. Like a shell, a negative, a trace, something left behind. I glue the parts I cut out on sheets and ensures that when the pages are on top of each other, the text is filled in and becomes its own original again. (So far this has been done on bad paper and is mostly a mock-up. I will do this with high precision, risograph printing and good paper. Maybe go up from A4 to A3 size? This is work in progress).
I continue with the text fragments I have cut out and give myself the limitation to choose a maximum of 10 important words on each page of the article. I cut these out. The result is 123 words. At first it was difficult to choose only 10 on each page; on some pages I would like to include 20-30 words. But as a push myself to select and discard words finding the essence of my interest, it becomes fun to relate to this limitation - something outside of myself is activated, an element of coincidence comes into play. There are words that disappear in this process that might have been important. But this is a method and I start trusting the process. And I see how the words begin to live their own lives; one day I find one of the words on the floor. Attention, it says. Is there a message I should be aware of here? A message from whom? There are many cut out words to keep track of and they are so small that they are difficult to work with. I am reluctant of gluing them on paper and thus locking in the process and its potential meaning. I like to keep it open and be able to play with the loose words, I do not want to decide too early. I try to scan the cut-out words, but it is a nightmare, they stick to the lid of the copier machine and jump around.
What happens next? Will it be a glossary? Should I group the words by topic? How can I continue to work visually with the words? I'm reminded of Stephan Sagmeister's way of working with words and phrases, as well as my own wood waste typography that I made early in the process. I might look into this again. For now, I have a collection of words that I can use as a starting point for associative writing. I observe that visibility / invisibility stands out as important notions based on the words I have chosen.
I select the 10 most interesting words from the 123 I have cut out. These are: consequences, control, convenient, eclipse, embedded, everyday life, habit, interwoven, neutral tools and resist.
I test whether I can use these 10 words in a hammer context. Interwoven: The hammer is interwoven with the individual maneuvering it. Or: hammer that is interwoven with the material it is made of. The hammer that grows in and out of man. I can visualize the consequences of or opportunities for that man and things (in this case the hammer as an extension of the arm) grows into each other? The division between human and object is abolished. What can an interwoven hammer look like / mean /be? Interwoven in human / hammer context can be the starting point for more concepts to work on. I see a potential in especially these two opposites, these two possible consequences of human and objects being interwoven: humanization of things (animism) and instrumentalization of man. The hammer that is humanized vs. the human who is hammerized. The humanized hammer vs. the hammerized human. The hammer that is humanized - why is this interesting? Is it something or someone from the outside that governs this process of humanization or is it something the Hammer does itself? The human who is hammerized - this is easily linked to efficiency and instrumentalization in modern society.