Advertisement

Design as Debate: The Thing Beyond the Object

  • Annie Gentes
Chapter
  • 189 Downloads
Part of the Design Research Foundations book series (DERF)

Abstract

This chapter introduces political philosophy – in particular Habermas’s theory of communication – and critical design. From the point of view of design, the question is how stakeholders organize a debate around their production and how it sustains the generativity of the design project. In this respect, designers not only produce objects, but produce “things” whose identities are in question, hence the need for expansive debates that contribute to the invention. Chapter Six examines three examples that shape the way artists, designers and researchers challenge their own perception and that of their users and audiences.

References

  1. Agre, P. E. (1997). Toward a critical technical practice: Lessons learned in trying to reform AI. In G. Bowker, L. Gasser, L. Star & B. Turner, (Eds.), Bridging the great divide: Social science, technical systems, and cooperative work. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Armytage, W. H. G. (1966). A social history of engineering (2nd ed.). Cambridge: The MIT press.Google Scholar
  3. Auyang, S. Y. (2006). Engineering: An endless Frontier. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baldwin, C., Hienerth, C., & Von Hippel, E. (2006). How user innovations become commercial products: A theoretical investigation and case study. Research Policy, 35(9), 1291–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bardzell, J., Bardzell, S. (2013). What is critical about critical design? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3297–3306).Google Scholar
  6. Bardzell, S. et al. (2013). Critical design and critical theory: The challenge of designing for provocation. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (pp. 288‑297).Google Scholar
  7. Battarbee, K., & Koskinen, I. (2005, mars). Co-experience: User experience as interaction. CoDesign, 1(1), 5–18.Google Scholar
  8. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity (1st ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Becker, H. S. (1982). Art worlds. Berkley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  10. Boehner, K., et al. (2005). Critical technical practice as a methodology for values in design. CHI 2005 Workshop on quality, values, and choices. Portland, OR, April 2–7.Google Scholar
  11. Coleridge, S. T. (1985). Biographia Literaria: The collected works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, biographical sketches of my literary life & opinions (First Paperback Edition). London: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Cross, N. (Ed.). (1971). Design participation: Proceedings of the Design Research Society’s conference. Manchester: Academy Editions.Google Scholar
  13. Dourish, P. (2004). Where the action is: The foundations of embodied interaction (New Ed ed.). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dunne, A. (2008). Hertzian Tales: Electronic products, aesthetic experience, and critical design. Cambridge, The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Eckert, C., & Stacey, M. (2000). Sources of inspiration: A language of design. Design Studies, 21, 528.Google Scholar
  16. Fallman, D. (2008). The interaction design research triangle of design practice, design studies, and design exploration. Design Issues, 24(3), 4–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gaver, W. (2012). What should we expect from research through design? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 937–946. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2208538.
  18. Gaver, W., & Dunne, A. (1999). Projected realities: Conceptual design for cultural effect. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 600–607). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=303168
  19. Gaver, W. W., et al. (2004). The drift table: Designing for ludic engagement. In CHI’04 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 885–900). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=985947
  20. Gaver, W., et al. (2010). The prayer companion: Openness and specificity, materiality and spirituality. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 2055–2064). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1753640.
  21. Genette, G., & Goshgarian, G. M. (1997). The work of art. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gentes, A. (2001). Les sites artistiques sur Internet : essai d’une typologie des écrans d’accès aux oeuvres d’art. Solaris, Matière numérique: la production et l’invention des formes, 7. http://gabriel.gallezot.free.fr/Solaris/d07/7gentes.html (retrieved 20 September 2017).
  23. Gentes, A. (2003). “Art-titres” sur Internet : enjeux de l’énonciation curatoriale. Communications et Langages, 137, 88–100.Google Scholar
  24. Gentes, A. (2007). L’intime à l’épreuve du réseau. Communication et langages, 152, 89–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gentes, A., & Mollon, M. (2015). Critical design: A delicate balance between the thrill of the uncanny and the interrogation of the unknown. In D. Bihanic (Ed.), Empowering users through design: Interdisciplinary studies and combined approaches for technological products and services (pp. 79–101). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grenier, C. (2008). La revanche des émotions: essai sur l’art contemporain. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  27. Habermas, J. (1985). The theory of communicative action, Volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society (trans: McCarthy, T.). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hatchuel, A., Weil, B., & Collectif. (2014). Les nouveaux régimes de la conception : Langages, théories, métiers. Paris: Editions Hermann.Google Scholar
  29. Höök, K., Sengers, P. et Andersson, G. (2003). Sense and sensibility: Evaluation and interactive art. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 241–248).Google Scholar
  30. Hymes, D. H. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics; an ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  31. Jeanneret, Y. (1994). Ecrire la science – Formes et enjeux de la vulgarisation. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  32. Koskinen, I. K., et al. (2011). Design research through practice: From the lab, field, and showroom. Waltham: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  33. Le Masson, P., Weil, B., & Hatchuel, A. (2017). Design theory. Methods and organization for innovation. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Luck, R. (2003). Dialogue in participatory design. Design Studies 24(6, novembre), 523–535. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(03)00040-1.
  35. Lyotard, J.-F. (1979). La condition postmoderne (Editions de Minuit ed.). Paris, Les Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar
  36. Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (1st ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  37. Manzini, E. (2009). New design knowledge. Design Studies, 30(1), 4–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Morello, A. (2000, Autumn). Design predicts the future when it anticipates experience. Design Issues, 16(3), 35–44.Google Scholar
  39. Newton, S. (2004). Designing as disclosure. Design Studies, 25, 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Prahalad, C.K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3, Janvier), 5–14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20015.
  41. Rickenberg, R. (2008, Spring). Interpretation, collaboration, and critique: Interview with Anthony Dunne. Journal of Design Management, 3(1), 22–28.Google Scholar
  42. Rochlitz, R. (1998). L’art au banc d’essai: esthétique et critique. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  43. Sanoff, H. (2000). Community participation methods in design and planning. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  44. Saper, C. J. (2001). Networked art. Minneapolis: University. of Minnessota Press.Google Scholar
  45. Schaeffer, J.-M. (2000). Adieu à l’esthétique. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Seago, A., & Dunne, A. (1999). New methodologies in art and design research: The object as discourse. Design Issues, 15(2), 11.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1511838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Simakova, E. (2010, August). RFID ‘Theatre of the proof’: Product launch and technology demonstration as corporate practices. Social Studies of Science, 40(4), 549–576. first published on 15 June , 2010.Google Scholar
  48. Simondon, G. (2016). On the mode of existence of technical objects (trans: Malaspina, C.). Minneapolis: Univocal Publishing.Google Scholar
  49. Smith, W. (2009, June). Theatre of use: A frame analysis of information technology demonstrations Social Studies of Science, 39, 449–480.Google Scholar
  50. Stallabrass, J. (2003). Internet art. The online clash of culture and commerce. London: Tate Publishing.Google Scholar
  51. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Von Hippel, E. (2006). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  53. Zwick, D., Bonsu, S. K., & Darmody, A. (2008). Putting consumers to WorkCo-creationand new marketing govern-mentality. Journal of Consumer Culture, 8(2), 163–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annie Gentes
    • 1
  1. 1.Codesign Lab, I3Telecom ParisTechParisFrance

Personalised recommendations