Designing Design Research
The RCA Society again gave its support to the “More is More” series of symposia, organised by Alec Robertson, recently held at the Dana Centre, London. Members may recall a number of design complexity events organised by Alec - two were previously held at the College (2005 / 2006) and one at East London University (2007). see - photo gallery of the event
Connect and Comment
This year the Society made an active intervention into the activities of the ‘Design Research Clusters’ with two of our members, John Kaine and Diana Brown, presenting a ‘conversation’ between the practitioner and the theorist.
Discussion around theory and practice is always a challenge to be relished - as each discipline tries to outwit the other. So let’s have an open discussion on this website about issues concerning art and design practice. Post your observations and thoughts to the Society...
"MORE is MORE 2"
4D Product Design for The Everyday
Venue: DANA CENTRE, (Science Museum, London)
Date: Tuesday 6th May 2008.
"Is complexity science with arts & design about give us 'polite robotic traffic lights', an 'angry robot toaster', or delightfully choreographed buildings"?
New creative industries may well appear in the 21st Century that we have yet to conceive of. It is important to explore 'Avant Garde' ideas for these.
MORE is MORE 2 - an afternoon Symposium was followed by a Networking Soiree prior to an Evening DIALOGUE in the Dana Centre of the Science Museum to explore, through Serendipity Syndicates, emergent directions in design research concerning the 4D arts. Particular focus was given to the dynamics of articulated responsive objects. Only recently have the disciplines of design, performance arts, and complexity science come together to explore the design of new 'objects'. There is increasing recognition that designers involved in robot design as well as dealing with complexity issues and the performance arts, can offer insights for innovative design of 'everyday' products and systems.
Several '4D objects' were available to stimulate emergence of ideas on future possibilities for design practice and research. An expressive robot face from Merlin Robots, Shadow Robots articulated hand robot, Snake Robot from EO2, The HaRT Animatron (junior) from IOCT DMU, Autonomous Helicopter Robots IOCT DMU, Video screenings of Spider Crab.EO2
This Event aimed to contribute to 'Embracing Complexity in Design II' Research Cluster, part of the UK AHRC and EPSRC Research Initiative 'Designing for the 21st Century', with the intention of making connections between design theory, and practice. Designers, artists, complexity scientists, engineers and design managers attended. Participants had the opportunity to explore some 'dynamic objects' and reflect upon our relationship to them for 'real world' application as both 'delightful' and 'useful' products, systems and services. The Event was a success, with interesting sessions particularly the 'interactive' Research Reflection part, followed by the Soiree and evening DANA Dialogue, enabled some productive 'serendipity'. However, two parallel sessions might have enabled more of this in the afternoon - but a dilemma avoided on the day!
Although the event took place in early May you can still contribute to the proceedings by completing another 'Serendipity Sheet' with any points of view you could not make on the day, or on reflection you would like to make - even if you were not able to attend all the event.
Email to: alec.robertson@4d-dynamics.net
Programme
1.30pm: Keynote speech
Dynamics of Complexity by Professor Jeffrey Johnson (Professor of Complexity Science and Design, Open University, ECiD Cluster Leader)
SERENDIPITY SYNDICATES
S1 TALK: Complexity and Emergence in Robotics Systems Design by Professor George Rzevski (Founder and Chief Scientist, Magenta Corporation. www.rzevski.net)
S2 Conversation: Kinetic Art, Animatronics and Product Design
RCA Society: Diana Brown (Animatronics and design) with John Kaine (Art-Robots)
S3: Researching Complexity, Dynamic Form and the Design Process.
S4: Choreography and Design in Interactive Environments. An Interdisciplinary Facilitator provides input for and helps make connections between some theory and practice.
4.30pm: REFLECTIVE SESSION
New Directions for Design Research.
Session Chair: Professor Tom Inns (Leader. Designing for the 21st Century Project)
5.15: Thanks to Serendipity Syndicate Participants
5.30: Networking Soiree.
Buffet PRIVATE VIEW of STREETWISE ROBOTS
Keynote speech: Frank Peters, (CEO of the Chartered Society of Designers)
6.45: Thanks to Afternoon Participants not booked into DANA DIALOGUE
7.00: The Public “Meet the Experts”
DANA DIALOGUE: STREETWISE ROBOTS
Introduced by Noel Sharkey. (Professor of Artificial Intelligence & Robotics, University of Sheffield)
8.00: DIALOGUE Question & Answer Session
Web links
www.danacentre.org.uk
www.4d-dynamics.net/ddr7.htm
Discussion Forum
Alec Robertson
"MORE is MORE 2"
New creative industries may well appear in the 21st Century we have yet to conceive of, and it is important to explore 'Avant Garde' ideas for these.In May The Society was pleased to join with ECiD Cluster again of the UK AHRC and EPSRC Research ŒDesigning for the 21st Century initiative in a second major event bridging practice and research, art and science through design.
Entitled “More is More 2: 4D Product Design for the Everyday”‚ it involved an afternoon Symposium followed by an informal evening Dialogue. Emergent directions in design research concerning the 4D arts were explored, with exhibits of for example, a robot hand, which shook hands with participants, to a dancing tower called Snake Robot. Society member John Kaine enthralled all with his metaphysics and art session, as did Alec Robertson with his provocative questions "Is complexity science with arts&design about give us 'polite robotic traffic lights', an 'angry robot toaster', delightfully choreographed buildings, and swarms of “smart‚ hats."? More is More 2‚ was hosted at the DANA Centre of the Science Museum, a few hundred metres down Queen’s Gate rather than at the College
John Kaine
Science talks but it don’t sing or dance and it don’t walk
(With apologies to Neil Diamond)
Having attended two ECiD events I cannot see what I contributed or what I carried away. I suspect that I ate too much jelly, got over excited, insulted the host and didn’t say thank you when I left. To attend one of these shindigs certain basic equipment is required, the scientist are not easy to deal with, and awareness of their stance is required. To help with this I would like to suggest a reading list.
However, before I do this I think I should state my position.
What I stand for is I.E. but I do not mean id est. It stands for insight and entertainment, and that means intuitive understanding and entertainment in the sense of giving attention to.
In suggesting several titles I am not sure if I am suggesting them to allow insight into scientific thinking or as a suit of armour to protect from the scientists’ unconscious indifference. This is not meant as a barb, it is a plea saying I cannot care about something I have no comprehension of. First off they come heavily armed with academic titles which gives them confidence and an elevated sense of self, and they are clearly not used to being challenged. To artists they look like a bevy of pantomime dames, traditionally derided, but at the end grudgingly applauded. To quote Edward Lear “Who or why, or which or what, / Is the Arkond of Swat?”. And for God’s sake don’t go near them unless you have read Alice in Wonderland, and I mean recently. And keep your eye on the Cheshire cat - it is conceptually rather worrying.
It is advisable to read:
‘Godel, Escher, Bach’ by Douglas Hofstadter - ‘The Grammatical Man’ by Jeremy Campbell - ‘Alice in Wonderland’ by Lewis Carroll - ‘Rubbish Theory’ by Michael Thompson - Any of the rationalist philosophers (probably Kierkegaard)
If you have the stomach for it, try to gain some little insight into First-order logic. And look up the meaning of solipsism in a large dictionary of philosophy. As an artist or designer you will understand it.
Now, suitably prepared let’s confront the system.
I assert that artists give us profundity with tinsel round it. This is not intended to be glib, the entry point to art is clear and inviting even though we may not immediately understand the content. We as artists also carry a great deal of baggage in the form of failure. Most art is bad, if it were not everyone’s house would be stuffed to the ceiling with it. We are not alone in this, we admit it. Cezanne’s work is pockmarked with failure. He periodically painted large single male figures with no apparent merit. What he was aiming at we don’t know, but clearly he didn’t get there. On the science side Einstein spent a large part of his life working on a unified field theory that went nowhere. He also thought quantum mechanics was nonsense! (subatomic particle physics).
Now having pointed out some of our failings (the artists) and tried to see some of theirs (the scientists) we must confront the mismatch of sensibility. We have it they don’t. (It’s not rocket science.) Logic based systems of thought or study by their very nature preclude visual perception. Not that scientists have to infer the existence of their nearest and dearest each morning but that their comprehensions are not visual in origin. Ours are - theirs aren’t, that’s the problem.
If you have read any cosmology you will see just how big the gulf can be.
When I spoke at the first symposium I wrote a joke for the occasion, which was as follows: A Neanderthal man was standing outside his cave with an enormous pile of earth. His friend comes along and says ”what’s the pile of earth for?” The first man says “oh that, it’s a portrait of my mother in law”. To which the second man said “she must be a very ugly woman”. “No” the first man said “it’s a physical representation of her mass expressed in a common material”. “Oh” said the other man “did she think it made her bum look big”?
Representation and reality are not the same thing as also theory and language are not. One requires perception the other does not.
I was once standing in a group of people and a man turned to me and said ‘tell me what we are looking at”. Oh dear, the gulf gets bigger!
|