(2015) audience construction & the uncanny (notes) – at goldsmith df

MAX MOLLON | AUDIENCE CONSTRUCTION & THE UNCANNY | GOLDSMITH DESIGN FESTIVAL 2015

MAX MOLLON | AUDIENCE CONSTRUCTION & THE

UNCANNY | PRESENTED AT GOLDSMITH DESIGN FESTIVAL

2015

Max Mollon | Audience Construction & the uncanny | Goldsmith design festival 2015 | London, England

Speculation as Design ResearchTobie Kerridge, Max Mollon, Luiza Prado de O. Martins, Alison Thomson

While speculative and critical design (SCD)approaches have been written about extensively,there is scope to develop empirically robustaccounts of these practices as a form ofdesign research.

This symposium brings together an international group of students andresearchers who are challenging popularand rhetorical modes of writing about SCDby responding to issues that impinge upontheir practice, including patient experience,upstream engagement and colonialism.

SymposiumFriday 4th September, 10:00 - 13:00LG02, Professor Stuart Hall Building

GOLDSMITHS DESIGN

DEPARTMENT OF DESIGNgold.ac.uk

FESTIVAL3 - 9 SEPT

Speculation as Design ResearchTobie Kerridge, Max Mollon, Luiza Prado de O. Martins, Alison Thomson

While speculative and critical design (SCD)approaches have been written about extensively,there is scope to develop empirically robustaccounts of these practices as a form ofdesign research.

This symposium brings together an international group of students andresearchers who are challenging popularand rhetorical modes of writing about SCDby responding to issues that impinge upontheir practice, including patient experience,upstream engagement and colonialism.

SymposiumFriday 4th September, 10:00 - 13:00LG02, Professor Stuart Hall Building

GOLDSMITHS DESIGN

DEPARTMENT OF DESIGNgold.ac.uk

FESTIVAL3 - 9 SEPT


SPECULATION AS DESIGN RESEARCHSYMPOSIUM ORGANISED BY TOBIE KERRIDGE. PART OF THE GOLDSMITH DESIGN FESTIVAL 2015 OCT. O4TH

WITH LUIZA PRADO DE O. MARTINS, MAX MOLLON, ALISON THOMSON.

My initial reply to Tobie’s demand: In my work, I argue SCD uses design speculations to look into “people's reactions” when facing alternative views to the world they know. Indeed, “people’s reactions are the true product” of these practices – as James Auger puts it, in his thesis. For that reason, I feel the word empiric to echo with the relationship of SCD to its audiences. Empirical Speculation can refer to specific phases of the design process: collecting the audience reactions.

Collecting people’s reactions can occur along two phases: the production & the reception of the artefact.• First, showing the project to potential users allows to crash-

test the relevance of a speculation (regarding a specific audience’s background). These experiments allow to test the ability of a proposition to elicit “meaningful reactions” and so, to ensure good reception conditions for the project (eg. avoiding unintended debates). This is close to classical design’s pre-release user-testing, enabling to fine-tune the project. I like to call it “potential-user testing”.

• The second step happens in live conditions of diffusion, collecting actual reactions of an audience.

To put it in one word, Empirical Speculation is less about verifying the accuracy of a conjecture than its effect on people. It is therefore all about ensuring the relevance of a speculation to a public and collecting its reactions.For a matter of brevity, we will not go deeper into the questions of unintended debates, and situated audiences, yet.


BONJOUR!

French accent! sorry ;)


1. STORY OF THE PROJECT 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

—AUDIENCE CONSTRUCTION

& THE UNCANNY

TODAY’S MENU:

or, to be clear:


THEMEMENTO MOR-E

PROJECT

WON’T TALK ABOUT long term speculationbut projection into scenarios where everyday life would be slightly altered by an objectDisclaimer: this is a work in progress


MEMENTO MOR-E

HERE IS ONE OF MY 2 ONGOING PROJECTSboth exploring & highlighting ethical problems related to the treatment of MND (moto-neuron) patients in the health care system››Topic = POWERLESS facing the incurable, unavoidable—“Memento more” refers to watchmaking traditions of carpeDiem, cease the day


2 TOPICS:UNIQUE FLUCTUENT TIME PERCEPTION & ENCOURAGING POINTLESS FIGHTING—This is a highly sensitive issue & sensible audience.HOW to represent time when › not same speed anymore?HOW to provoke reflection with the least design intervention possible?—Answer › a day to day calendar (Ephemeral)

9

PLEASE CHECK THE VIDEO: VIMEO.COM/MAXMOLLON/EPHEMERIDE

10

11



PROJECT’S INTENTION

Destination: anti-disciplinary debate in the annual MND conferenceDebate’s aim: identify main topics of interest in the community among ethical problems of MND


Client = ethical commission on ethics & healthcare- Their usual mission = mediation&debate on ethical issues, but ineffective- Collaboration's aim = Check if design can be tool to improve their debating & mediation activity


They are part of Hopital St Louis in Paris


- Government program about MND › 6 diseases


RESEARCH INTENTIONS

That was their aim but my aim = analyzing how SCD transforms their practice from inside. Field study (STS/ethno)Today experiment

• reactions to the uncanny (individually)• reactions collectively, what’s the difference?• re-circulation of the topic inside the community


MAX MOLLON | AUDIENCE CONSTRUCTION & THE UNCANNY | GOLDSMITH DESIGN FESTIVAL 2015MY 3 MASTERS TUTORS



I ended doing the same thing


WHAT IS SPECULATIVE DESIGN

CLAIM?

what is SCD good at?


SPECULATIVE DESIGN AIMS AT PROPOSING ALTERNATIVES

TO THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT IN ORDER TO

ENGAGE PEOPLE INTO REFLECTION & DISCUSSION

FINE we know how to propose alternatives.I focus on the two latter


But where & how does the discussions happen?Art institutions, Mass media, designers workshop, conferences, innovation companies, scientific labs…Critics include: - “Designers are not skilled to animate a society debate”- “Our Audience = curators, they animate the debate”- “working with scientists : Hard to “close the loop” - “Art communities = elitist”- “Massive press = superficial”-


HOW TO ALLOW REFLECTION?WHO TO ENGAGE INTO DISCUSSION?

—I came to ask…


THEORETICAL BACKGROUND:TEXTS STUDIES

PROJECTS ANALYSIS

HOW• Based on a study of authors’ projects & discourses: We highlight that a gentle provocation is

necessary to elicit reactions = “uncanny enough” artefact• We compare this mechanism to breaching experiments (Garfinkle). Thanks to the uncanny

balanced project, SCD could allow an audience to express and discuss the untold & unconscious (eg. social norms)

WHO• We also believe that SCD sparking of discussions would be more relevant in a contextual pre-

existing audience. Not arbitrary. And allow propagation of the discussion into existing social networks.


HOW TO ALLOW REFLECTION?WHO TO ENGAGE INTO DISCUSSION?

UNCANNY

CONSTRUCTION

- gentle provocation- following the propagation of topics into existing social spheres


EXPERIMENT

My upcoming experiment


HOW—WE BELIEVE: An imbalanced provocation allows for less reflection & expression —TEST: ≠ versions of the artefacts (more-less provocative)to experiment the uncanny on ≠ scales

• uncanny (individual)• uncanny collective, what’s different?


HOW—WE BELIEVE: an uncanny enough artefact allows for expression of untold & unconscious—TEST: Comparison of their previous debates and design-led one


WHO:—WE BELIEVE: Targeting a situated (existing, contextual) audience, during the debate, allows the topics to be re-addressed/re-circulated afterwards in other social spheres—TEST:Wait for re-use of our material & topics by the client & the community


FIRST OBSERVATION


This it the first proposition for L’Éphéméride.The message is more provocative. It’s aiming at people who does not know the disease.


This project was too shocking for patients!THIS REALLY DEPENDS OF THE AUDIENCE (patient, doctor, non-ill people)Need for adapting the uncanny to existing audiences


SECOND OBSERVATION


They have their own public engagement activities, methods, media & audiences!They already planned on re-using our material



The “circulation” of the debated topic already moved among different audiences. It started with this project, made for INRA.






They published our collaboration on their website. The debate with their scientists led to meeting the ethics commission and the realisation of the next project.


GMO › BIG-DATA & LIVING BEINGS HEALTH › HUMAN HEALTH PREDICTIONS ›

› MND & HEALTHCARE › MND & TECHNOLOGIES › INSURANCE PLANS & TECHNOLOGIES › …

This is the series of topics debated from projects to projects, as metamorphose of the debate topics.




WORK IN PROGRESS

AUDIENCE CONSTRUCTION & THE UNCANNY

–SPECULATIVE DESIGN AS A TOOL FOR

COLLECTIVE REFLECTION & DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PREFERABLE FUTURES

My aim, as a researcher, is to understand how to better Reach SCD promise: engaging reflection & discussion—But for what purpose?I will discuss the designer’s role & responsibility, when stepping up into the political scene—(Credibility, skills, need for participation/inclusion, etc.)


THANKS!

LICENSED UNDER CREATIVE COMMONS 2.5: ATTRIBUTION NON-COMMERCIAL NO DERIVATIVES.

AUDIENCE CONSTRUCTION & THE UNCANNY

–[email protected]