What follows is a discussion between David Brody, Assistant Professor of Design Studies in the Art & Design Studies Department at Parsons The New School for Design, and Thomas Jockin, Founder of Milieu and student at Parsons.
What started as a conversation over the growth and decline of the facebook group If this group reaches 100,000 members My Girlfriend will have a Threesome became a passionate discussion about privacy, and design’s role in perception.
TJ: I figured a general question would be a good place to start, and I will ask more specific questions in relation from your responses. You can see the “design artifacts” I reference In a previous Milieu post
-———
What are your thoughts on the significance this group might have on design? On culture? What might those be? Is it the rapid growth of this group? The design artifacts that were created? Or Is it both as I’m inclined to believe?
———
Brody: In terms of your query about “design artifacts” it does seem that facebook is a good place to turn, but what I find most interesting about the site is the breakdown between public and private. Are you familiar with the backlash that occurred last week when facebook began to distribute “private” information to others? Although people want their lives to be public, many have a line and once that line is crossed they quickly fight back. The threesome issue is a hyperbolic example of this breakdown between public and private, but it is, I think, an extreme. I think it might be more intriguing to use it as an example, but explore the larger issues related to privacy and publicity that are evoked by other “design artifacts” that constitute facebook’s pages.
TJ: Actually part of the reason the threesome group succeed as much as they did was because of the “Mini-Feed” that was so protested, which as you said, most certainly blurs what is considered private and what is to be seen in the public. However, this isn’t the only piece of design, from a historical view, to blur the line between the public and the private— architecture has been playing with that dynamic for a very long time, no?
Brody: Oh yes! There is a great group of essays edited by Michael Sorkin that deals closely with this issue. The book is called Variations on a Theme Park. Like our urban spaces where the private and the public are collapsed and always changing, the Web does the same thing. Some of the same issues emerge in both venues:
1-The idea of access. Who has access to certain spaces, both “real” and virtual. Who is denied access?
2-The notion of surveillance. Who is able to follow us as we move through the modern city? Who is able to follow us— via cookies— in the virtual realm.
3-The import of consumption. Like architectural spaces, much of the virtual world is now using “public” spaces to advertise. Have you seen Second Life.com? What an incredible site/experience. This space will, I have no doubt, become filled with more and more consumerism as it lures more users.
TJ: Both urban spaces and the web do the same thing— the transfer of goods, services and information between people. But I would like to focus on the notion of surveillance and the collapse of public vs. private. There’s certainly a tension in those elements which are going to be decided by design— because, it is in design that what is seen and what is not seen is decided.
For example, going back to facebook and the Mini-Feed, the reason I would say it is bad design is because it made itself too obvious. Comparing the Mini-Feed to the cookies you’ve stated before, cookies are not visible to the average user. On the contrary the Mini-Feed is visible to anyone.
Not to mention, unlike surveillance cameras in urban spaces where the degree of personal information exposed is minimal to a small number of people, on the facebook Mini-Feed, a massive amount of personal information is exposed to a large pool of people.
Add those two elements together and you get a massive disaster in design, no?
Brody: So, are you saying that “good design” is that which is not obvious? While I too like the notions of nuance and subtle design, I am not certain if obvious design is bad design. Can you clarify?
Also, I am not so certain that surveillance cameras are as innocuous as you imagine. Yes, that information might be going to a small number of people, but isn’t surveillance and invasions of privacy in the public sphere a very slippery slope?
TJ: What I meant by obvious was in the sense of being seen— You’re not aware of something unless you see it.
A lot happens around a person that they’re not aware of— and that’s because they don’t see it in some manner— and even if you do see something, what you see is meditated in some manner and thus what information you’re given is decided by someone else other than yourself.
If you don’t see or know something how can you get upset or even have an opinion on something?
In the case of the Mini-Feed, It practically declared “LOOK AT ME!” As a result of how it was designed singularly on a users home page, as well as accessible on that user’s profile page for all to see. It’s not hard to form an opinion about this design with it in front of your face every time you log in.
If the Mini-Feed was presented in a less visible manner the degree of protest would shrink significantly. Like I said earlier, I don’t see droves of people protesting cookies— because you don’t see them.
Back to the surveillance camera, I meant in the sense of how visible these cameras are designed to be. Usually they aren’t so obvious, thus the ability for people to be aware of those elements is dropped considerably. While at other times, like for example any quickie mart, they actually use the camera and close circuit televisions to make sure the customer is perfectly aware he is being viewed and to deter theft.
Brody: The seeing/not seeing conundrum is incredibly complicated. If I understand what you are saying, you seem to contend that the overt nature of the Facebook page makes it more egregious. It is so obvious that it becomes an exaggerated example of “bad design.” Furthermore, you note that if we don’t “see” something, we can’t get upset by it. I would argue that it is critical that designers and critics search out those instances when design obscures the use of surveillance. When design is used to interrogate our every move, and we are oblivious to its presence, is when it is most dangerous. We can easily write off the not-so-subtle jokester who created the Mini-Feed. Yes, he appears to be a sexist fool, but he is so obvious that it is absurd. It is the world of the hidden that really needs to be found, scrutinized, and analyzed.
TJ: But I wonder if this just is one of the purposes of design— a tool to obscure the world for people. To misdirect and convince people to do something, think something or see something.
How far of a gap is there between design that obscures the use of surveillance and say, an ad for an ipod? The mechanics are the same, no? Information is both selectively presented and withheld to make people see, think or do something that is desirable for the parties involved.
Brody: Yes, information is obscured in both cases. And, I do understand your point about design’s role as that which mediates in a tacit manner. However, there needs to be checks and balances. In our current post-industrial world, there are so many opportunities for abuse. The marketing/advertising game is just one example— albeit a good one— of how designers are paid to “selectively present” information and context. In my last response I was thinking of far more problematic examples, such as our current administration’s use of surveillance to supposedly thwart the efforts of terrorists. Ultimately, many of these invasive tactics destroy our civil liberties in ways that leave us with no choice, no agency, and, as you mentioned earlier, little understanding of what is actually happening. At least with an ad we have the opportunity to turn our head, or look in the other direction, if we see the representation of a product we want to ignore. Even though, of course, the idea that we as consumers can ignore all marketing is a fantasy.
TJ: Speaking of little understanding of what is going on, remember the “embedded” reporters during the Iraq war? We really didn’t get very much from these reporters— it was kind of like white noise that did not inform people about things in Iraq and most certainly did not contribute to the public discourse over this war. It was the worst kind of communication— it felt like you were being informed, but it very much was the contrary— you weren’t being informed at all.
At the very least these exercises in obstruction show how fragile reality is for a person. How something is framed and presented effects so much how a person views an event or thing, wouldn’t you agree?
And, if that’s the case, isn’t it imperative for designers of communication to take a leadership role in how information is presented to the public? I have to admit how that would be executed is murky for myself right now, beside work in non-profits. Should this be internalized into professional organizations like the AIGA or ADC?
Any thoughts on this issue?
Brody: I strongly believe that ideas about ethics, communication, and politics need to be taught and the place to begin this dialog is design schools. We need more classes that ask students to take a step back and question the marketplace that they will soon enter. This becomes tricky because too much design education focuses only on securing a job and not on larger concerns, such as critiquing design and questioning design’s place in the world. It is exciting that schools, such as Parsons, are taking a more active role in design education that stresses critical thinking, but more needs to be done. Professional organizations, such as AIGA, should continue this discussion, but design schools need to be on the frontlines of this important conversation.
TJ: You’ve touched a sore spot. But do you think just adding electives in ethics, communication and politics are going to solve these larger issues of design education? I’m inclined to say a more aggressive change needs to happen.
It’s important to remember the methodology used today for design education has been around for about 60 years, with the Bauhaus, as a step away from what was called the “graphic artist.”
However the Bauhaus and the resulting Modernists were still heavily focused on craft— which still exists to this day. And I think we can all agree that things have changed in many, many ways since the Bauhaus.
Of course the most central change today is the craft skills of the communication design has become devalued due to PC’s— “buy your Photoshop and InDesign and you’re set,” is the mantra of most people today.
And yet design education continues to push the idea of craft training, as somehow that’s our marketable skill to the world. When the real skill is the designer’s ability to think critically at the world and then execute measurable, as well as positive, changes to it.
I would say it’s almost unethical for schools to just barf all these designers, every year, to a marketplace with the same methodology that’s been used for the past 50 years, when I believe it’s grossly outdated.
Brody: I very much agree with you here. Yes, there needs to be a holistic approach to design education that does not simply cram these important topics into humanities- type classes. Ethics needs to be discussed in studio and humanities courses, otherwise change will never occur.
Comments