Archive for June, 2007
June 8, 2007 at 7:17 AM · Filed under Design, interdisciplinary, relational aesthetics, teaching and learning, thesis
My goal is to implement synthesis between the disciplines of art, design, and biology. As a way of reaching this objective, a set of heuristics can be a valuable tool. My attempt is situated within a systems approach to art, which seeks to integrate the development of better decision making and other analytical strategies with creative arts behaviors. I import the heuristic concepts of relational aesthetics, boundary objects, and network entrepreneurship. These ideas of value, form, and behavioral strategy, respectively, can serve as first approximations for how to engage in the ideation and implementation of creative work. These also function as design strategies that take into account differences among disciplines. They may therefore aid in the formation of educational and organizational objectives whose aim is to find positive solutions at the interfaces of art, design, and life science.
1.1.1. Relational Aesthetics
One way to resolve the inconsistencies and differences among individuals is to emphasize the relationships among individuals. Relationships effectively emphasize the nature of interactions and are the product of more than one individual. This suggests a relational aesthetic, which takes into account the range and quality of human relationships and their social context (Bourriaud, 2002). Relational aesthetics relies on a definition of aesthetics as “an idea that sets humankind apart from other animal species.” Though human aesthetics are very different from those of other species, it is only the idea that they are different which sets humans apart from others. A definition of relational aesthetics can be expanded to include the range and quality of human and non-human relationships as variables.
Instead of setting humans apart from others we can now take into account the numerous interactions and relationships that occur between and among humans and non-humans.
If we refer back to the benchmarks for interdisciplinary integration, we are reminded to ask, “How do we create common ground and promote just relationships for each of these interactions?”
George Gessert’s work with hybrids of the Iris genus are a good example of relational aesthetics in action. Gessert cultivates iris strains as art. The cultivation and culling of Iris plants strengthens the relationship between Gessert’s own aesthetic preferences and the hybrid phenotypes or outward appearance (Gessert 1993). This is a form of artificial selection that has been used for centuries to domesticate and select organisms for human purposes–in Gessert’s case, the purposes are aesthetic. The thing to remember about Gessert’s relationship with the iris hybrids is that the relationship is, in many ways, the artwork. Rather than promoting an agonistic interaction by simply picking and displaying the flowers, Gessert refers to himself as a “facilitator” which demonstrates that his role is a cooperative one. Raising hybrid Irises is a collaborative artwork involving selective decisions from the artist and developmental decisions the organism. Gessert directly affects floral morphology through cultivation. This raises issues about how human-mediated selection and so-called natural forms of selection might affect plant-pollinator interactions. Correspondingly, other relationships that the plant has (e.g. microbes and fungi in the soil) may implicate other responsive stakeholders.
Examples of human and non-human interactions that promote cooperative relationships are not restricted to the art world. The poultry industry, pressured by the demand for eggs, raises hens in crowded cages to increase industrial efficiency. This crowding increases competitive interactions, mortality, and decreased egg production among the chickens and led to beak trimming as a controversial method of reducing injury. Researchers decided that a better way to decrease mortality and increase egg laying could be accomplished by selecting cages rather than individuals (Muir 1996). In this manner, the relationships among the individuals in the cages were important to the well-being of each individual. Cages with fewer agnostic interactions also demonstrated higher egg-laying productivity. Again, the point of this example is to demonstrate how relationships themselves can be a positive area of interest and lead to a more synergistic response.
Framing the relationship between individuals rather than specific qualities of individuals ensures that individual attributes are maintained in a relationship system, despite whatever value judgments are made. This system might include humans, non-humans, or a mix of both. Mark Thompson creates art installations that allow him to share a space with bees. In Thompson’s words, these serve as “models of interaction” while simultaneously creating pollination opportunities outside of the exhibition space (Gessert 1993).
Another area in which attention to relationships is important is in the practice of good pedagogy in teaching and learning. Attention to the strength of interactions fosters second-order understanding. Second-order understanding is the understanding that results from recognizing another individual’s understanding (Krippendorf 2006).
Strong interactions among individuals often promotes the establishment of empathy, a form of second-order understanding.
This can result in better design for educational objectives and creative research that springs from strong design. Chickering and Gamson outline seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education (1987) that have a relational component. Contact between students and faculty, reciprocity and cooperation among students, and prompt feedback, clearly suggest a relational strategy. Though less explicitly connected, feedback is a very important relational device for communication and for assessing the quality and range of interactions. Feedback reinforces second-order understanding.
My point in outlining these variables is to demonstrate that relationships (intense/relaxed; local/global; friendly/apathetic, for example) can be attended to, and as all relationships need more than one individual, there may be better opportunities to find common ground between differences. Attention to relationships can happen through working arrangements in the classroom, lab, or studio. In this approach, the comparison is about those patterns that connect these different levels of organization–biological or otherwise. This also does not presuppose which relationships are better or have more value than others. In Gessert’s work, an argument can be made that the iris benefits from increased cultivation. Gessert benefits from the pleasure they provide.
My intention is only to reframe the boundary of the system to take more perspectives into account. Those that are less frequently incorporated (e.g. non-humans) may gain an increased stake in discussions under this model. Consequently,decision-making that implements a relational set of values would first ask about the kinds of relationships created and what qualities and/or ranges those relationship exhibit.
Bourriaud, N. Relational Aesthetics. Trans. Pleasance, S. & F. Woods. Les Presses du Reel. 2002.
Chickering, A. W., and Gamson, Z. F. “Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education” American Association of Higher Education Bulletin. (1987). p.3-7.
Gessert, G. “Notes on Genetic Art,” Leonardo Vol 26, No. 3 (1993).
Krippendorf, K. The Semantic Turn: a new foundation for design. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. 2006.
Muir, W. M. Group selection for adaptation to multiple-hen cages: selection program and direct responses. Poultry Science 75: (1996). p.447-458.
June 7, 2007 at 9:37 AM · Filed under Design, interdisciplinary, science
A paper on the relationship between designers (including artists), scientists, and engineers came across my desk this morning. Having read it, I think it stimulates a few interesting thoughts worth commenting on.
The authors make a comparison between interdisciplinary collaboration an an Unreal Tournament. If you aren’t familiar with Unreal, I think it’s a multiplayer video game. Based on the content of the game, the metaphor is slightly militaristic and seems to have come in part from some conflict that transpired at a meeting of academics and practitioners at a Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) conference.
Militaristic metaphors aside, some of the more interesting ideas in the paper include a model of how reality differs for different individuals and/or paradigms.
Given a reality at time t1, science in the positivistic paradigm observes and analyzes particular phenomena in this reality, makes proper abstractions, and tries to predict similar phenomena for reality at time t2. To preserve a stable reality [reality(t1) = reality(t2)], science in the positivistic paradigm has to operate under the essential assumption that model and theory are not a part of realit{ [{model, theory} ∉ {reality}].
Their main research question was whether the different paradigms of designers, engineers and scientists do indeed lead to different views on reality. Qualitatively this doesn’t seem too different from measures in social science of how closely different observers agree in their observations (e.g. Krippendorf’s alpha)
Their result was negative in the sense that no difference was observed in the views of reality across disciplines. They attribute this to high heterogeneity among the participants. Instead they base their discussion on the positive relationship they observed between education and profession (that makes sense). They conclude that engineers are the binding element between designers and scientists while the interaction between designers and scientists is small. They base this conclusion on a theoretical, visual model for which they provide no empirical evidence. The question is certainly interesting and perhaps testable, but it remains speculation. Who was actually involved in brokering a peace a the meeting? In the HCI field, who mediates and translates between the disciplines?
They go on with a recommendation that,
Perhaps an overhaul of our education systems, to include more diverse courses, is required in order to obtain increased cooperation between disciplines.
It’s not necessarily more diversity in organizational structure that’s needed; it’s just the opposite. If the problem is the lack of collaborative ability, then perhaps the educational system should become more integrated with courses shared and coordinated by diverse individuals and mental models–rather than a greater diversification of the educational system itself (of course I’m coming at this from the U.S. perspective; the authors are from the Netherlands). For an explanation of why this is so, see Scott Page’s book.
Bartneck, C., & Rauterberg, M. (2007). HCI Reality – An ‘Unreal Tournament’? International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 65(8), 737-743.
June 7, 2007 at 9:07 AM · Filed under Design, interdisciplinary, science
I have been trying to identify potential obstacles to the union of design and scientific methods. One problem may be the hijacking of design and related fields by theists that believe the world has been “designed” by a supernatural force whose processes mirror those of humans. This may be very problematic for practitioners whose goal is to bring design-based education and strategy to the development, implementation, and communication of scientific research.
My profile at design21 lists me as a design biologist (following Dori’s lead). I can see how the science community might misinterpret this to be an indicator that I hold a theistic perspective on the development and organization of living things. It couldn’t be further from the case. Having been trained as an evolutionary biologist, I would hope that anyone thinking this could go beyond and critically recognize the trees for the forest.
Is this a naming issue? Intelligent design proponents have made a conscious effort to rebrand creationism using terminology that is much more secular. How can we make this apparent for people that may not immediately recognize the distinctions between design that is human-derived, design attributed to a theistic cause, and scientific processes. There is an interesting hybridization going on here that has both positive and negative connotations. These are different things, but there is the potential to confuse the two mixtures of science and design for religious reasons and the union of science and design for better decision-making.
June 6, 2007 at 1:03 PM · Filed under recipes
It’s a rhubarb kind of time right now in Ann Arbor. I picked up some nice fresh stalks from the farmer’s market a few blocks away. Adding some guava candy from Trader Joe’s made it an extra-special chewy treat!
Crust:
1 c. flour
3/4 c. raw oatmeal or quick oats
3/4 c. brown sugar
1/2 c. melted shortening (butter)
1 tsp. cinnamon
1/2 tsp. salt
1/2 tsp. baking powder (optional)
4-6 Guava paste rolls (available at Trader Joe’s and elsewhere)
Save the guava rolls for last.
Mix the dry ingredients together then add the melted butter. Knead until you get a crumbly dough.
Rhubarb Filling:
4 c. fresh rhubarb cut into smallish pieces
1/2-3/4 c. white sugar (depending on taste)
3/4 c. water
1 tbsp. cornstarch
Add the sugar and water to the cut rhubarb in a bowl and let sit (or not) while you prepare the crust. You can even add a bit of lemon juice for extra tartness. This will help draw the flavorful juices out. Add the cornstarch and mix thoroughly.
Spread the Rhubarb mixture into the bottom of a glass baking pan and cover evenly with the crumble crust. Crumble the guava rolls on top of the crust topping and bake at 375 F. for 30-45 minutes or until the crust is a deep golden brown.
Serves approximately 8-12 and yummy with vanilla ice cream.
June 4, 2007 at 1:42 PM · Filed under Design, making it public
DESIGN 21: Social Design Network’s mission in partnership with UNESCO is to inspire social activism through design. They connect people who want to explore ways design can positively impact our many worlds, and who want to create change here, now.
http://www.design21sdn.com/
June 4, 2007 at 1:03 PM · Filed under Design, network entrepreneurship
Answers abound…in terms of looking for ideas about how to overcome some of the difficulties associated with developing relationships between systems, design, and public health.
Take a look at DORI’s Moblog where she provides Two Reasons for the Failure of Design Policy . She is a design anthropologist, meaning that she is “tries to understand how the processes and artifacts of design help define what it mean to be human.”
Does that mean that a design biologist tries to understand how the processes and artifacts of design help define what it mean to be human and non-human.
I like that.
I found her research based on a tip from someone I met at the public health and complex systems conference last week. Speaking of social networks, weak connections are valuable.
June 4, 2007 at 9:07 AM · Filed under Design, interdisciplinary
On May 30th – June 1st I had the opportunity to attend a symposium that linked together the concerns of public health professionals and those who study and model complex systems. The symposium was hosted by the Center for Social Epidemiology and Population Health and the Center for the Study of Complex Systems here at the University of Michigan. The meeting brought together a very diverse groups of individuals. This provided me the opportunity to have substantive discussions with a range of individuals working in public health policy and implementation. 
These interactions helped me gain a recognition for the scale (and complexity) that individuals and organizations face when attempting to solve problems on local and global scales. Among my many encounters, I was able to converse and share ideas with a Professor from Brown University that studies nursing home policy, a graduate student from John Hopkins that has spent the last eight years developing and directing humanitarian relief missions in places ranging from Bolivia to Tajikistan, and a public health practitioner responsible for implementing relief programs for children in Ethiopia. I was genuinely surprised at the potential that exists to merge the interests of those working in these areas with those of art and design. I’ll try to articulate a few.
If you are not familiar with complex systems, it broadly refers to any system (biological, social, visual, emotional, technological, etc) composed of diverse components interacting in interesting ways. Carl Simon provided an overview early in the meetings that described those traits that distinguish complex systems from something that might just be complicated.
Complex systems have properties of:
- similarity and difference (for the latter you might pick up Scott Page’s book “The Difference” –a very nontechnical account of how diversity translates into social benefit.)
- stability and instability
- organizations and networks as opposed to randoms associations of individuals
- feedback and learning
- emergence–which simply indicates a relationship between the individual and society, for example
Some patterns stood out. Public health tends to focus most of its attention on individuals. Similarly, I think is it arguable that art and sometimes design share “the individual” as an organizing feature of the discipline. Systems approaches tend to take multiple levels into account and consequently set up a certain tension between individual and group level concerns. I think this is a healthy and very rich area for investigation. For example, how can you model empathy?
It’s not surprising then, that complex systems models sometime lack subjective interpretations. This point was raised during a talk that Dr. Simon presented last semester. He was asked about how the humanities and the arts could be incorporated into the methods of complex systems. The problem remains a difficult one that was reiterated by those in the public health profession. I think we often get caught up in the point in the process that involves adding quantitative values to some aspects of models that we create. This doesn’t have to be the case of course, and many complex systems models are solely verbal. Even more frequently they are multi-modal, incorporating visual, aural, and tactile senses.
I was struck by the diversity of goals embodied in the kind of modeling that take place when systems are “unpacked.” These goals include such things as prediction, explanation, action in real time, and many more. I wonder what kinds of goals individuals in art and design might share with these other modelers. That si the thing that got me most excited about this symposium. To be honest, I wasn’t initially all that excited about public health (though I am very excited now; see below). What intrigue me was the potential for this context to facilitate fertilization among art, design, the humanities, and the scientific and quantitative disciplines based on the assumption that there is some underlying shared similarity upon which we can all agree.
One issue that seemed to be implicit in many of the questions and comments was the role of perception and those cultural and visual aspects that influence public health. Many public health attendees reiterated the importance of cultural cues to the spread of disease. Smoking is a great example. The effort to ban depictions of smoking in movies seems to indicate the influence that artists and others have on public health. This role seems to be more widely recognized and may be a point of interest and future prospects.
A number of the quantitative modelers brought up the importance of underlaying antagonism in the systems they study. That is, in order for there to be any change (social or otherwise) some of the individuals had to be causing a ruckus (my word, not theirs). Consider this quantitative finding in light of many artists’ historical role in social change.
One thing that I wished had been dealt with more concretely was how, in practical terms, we can build relationships between those who are working on analytical complex systems models with those that bring other ways of seeing to the table. This peaks directly to the problem of integrating the concerns of other disciplines (e.g. art, history, biology, philosophy, etc) into models that propose solutions. What are the social strategies that students and others can use to begin to integrate and broker these diverse sets of methods?
Some possible solutions to this problem came from an enriching seres of conversations I had with a woman who has developed and supervised humanitarian assistance to refugees in Congo, infectious-disease control during natural disasters in Central Asia and the tsunami in Sri Lanka, and public health responses to drought and conflict in Somalia. We found a good deal of common ground in our professional interests–particularly is the area of design for the (so-called) other 90%. Some questions that we started to unpack related to the practical matters of involving artists and designers as members of aid missions. How can students and professionals apply their skills, interests, and methodologies to the diverse sets of problems facing sustainable development? How can design research be accomplished within the networks of international aid and local communities as a vector for problem-solving beyond the marketplace?
We’ve started a dialogue on this subject. If you have any ideas, comments, suggestions, or contacts on this area, we would really be interested in your thoughts via the comments below or to the electronic mail address in the right sidebar.
Finally, I did take part in a methods workshop in social network analysis. It was an amazing and very useful day that filled me in on its history and implementation. I went in interested in its possible applications for learning about how the social functions of artists are qualitatively different (or not) from other interdisciplinary practices. If you would like to hear more, just contact me.
June 3, 2007 at 7:46 AM · Filed under genomics, maps
Zack Denfeld and I had the opportunity to make a visit to The Institute for Transgeneography* in Troy, NY as part of (very brief) residency in association with our former advisor Rich Pell.
It was a valuable experience–if even just for the two days of freedom form dstraction to cognitively focus on the design and implementation of a visual analysis of the identity and distribution of patents on the Y chromosome.
One of the visual precedents we’ve started to develop relates to traditional Japanese woodblock prints and the ways that this approach organizes information. Here are some sketches.
The Institute for Transgeneography is a project whose primary objective is to create the world’s first comprehensive map of engineered transgenic flora and fauna. The project will consist of a database of transgenic organisms and the web interface that will make the information available to the public at large.
« Previous entries
1.1.1. Relational Aesthetics
Examples of human and non-human interactions that promote cooperative relationships are not restricted to the art world. The poultry industry, pressured by the demand for eggs, raises hens in crowded cages to increase industrial efficiency. This crowding increases competitive interactions, mortality, and decreased egg production among the chickens and led to beak trimming as a controversial method of reducing injury. Researchers decided that a better way to decrease mortality and increase egg laying could be accomplished by selecting cages rather than individuals (Muir 1996). In this manner, the relationships among the individuals in the cages were important to the well-being of each individual. Cages with fewer agnostic interactions also demonstrated higher egg-laying productivity. Again, the point of this example is to demonstrate how relationships themselves can be a positive area of interest and lead to a more synergistic response.
