In his presentation Speculative Everything, Anthony Dunne introduced various student projects of a speculative nature that explored design fictions. One student analyzed the future of dance while another student created a superstitious trading fund that reacted to the outside elements like the moon. My favorite part of these projects and the mentality that Dunne encourages of all his students, is this end goal of large scale thinking that still fits within reality. The Superstitious Fund is real – the student worked with a programmer, created a live artifact, funded it with real money, and it lives in the economic system. Yet, parts of it remain tied to the imagination. The speculative part was around how do algorithms get their morals? As imaginatively critical as these student projects are, they are still student projects and (one could argue) forms of art. The bio-hacker Heather Dewey bases part of her projects in real-life, part in fantastical imagination, and displays her work in art galleries.

Can we, as designers, take the same methodologies and implement speculative values into everyday, usable products? Does the impact of these speculative, border-line fantastical projects diminish once it leaves the realm of the art world?

Heather Dewey – Interview clips with Design Nonfiction

In her discussion regarding the political implications of biotechnology research, the bio-hacker Heather Dewey brings up the ethical dilemmas behind DNA surveillance and highlights the explosion of direct-to-consumer genetic services. Companies like 23andMe advertise the possibilities of gaining insights on health predispositions, carrier status, traits, and ancestry. Dewey’s argument is that by opting-in and willingly providing your DNA to this database, you are also opting-in for future generations. These future generations did not consent to be involved in this database forever and while I agree with her outrage – how do we get consent from future generations? I think of families who are genetic dispositions for potentially debilitating diseases, and an analysis of their DNA could open up new pathways in research to aid in the prevention of these diseases down the line. What if the so-called positives of the research like disease prevention outweigh the negatives like a police state? What of the idea of “what I’m doing right now is for the greater good down the line”? Can a morality clause like this be considered consent?

Us vs. Them: Our Future with Tech

September 30, 2020

Sara Hendren explores assistive technology in her article for Wired magazine and encourages designers to make more visible, critical, and expansive technology. I particularly loved the introduction story of how the furniture designs by Charles and Ray Eames were inspired and almost fueled by their design of a battlefield medical aid for wounded soldiers. It reminds me of designs like the utensil stabilizers developed by Liftware. The sensor technology utilized in the utensils are modeled after camera stability tech and in addition to keeping camera work steady, also makes spoons steady so people with mobility issues can eat successfully. It’s a great example of Hendren’s argument that designers should rethink the default bodily experience when designing technology. Eating can come so naturally to many people, how people eat and if people struggle with physically eating may not be top of mind to many people. Hendren’s article also makes me think, what would flexible and expansive technology look like for degenerative diseases like ALS or Parkinson’s? Sufferers of these diseases face potentially a long-term, slow deterioration both mentally and physically. Could this technology not only help them physically with their disease, but could it help them with accepting their disease?

All Technology is Assistive – Sara Hendren for Wired Magazine

In her book, When Biometrics Fail, Shoshana Amielle Magnet discusses the limited transparency and ethical frustrations with biometric technology. Her deep dive into biometric tech is well-versed and points to incredibly important questions and concerns that users and designers alike should consider when discussing and using the technology. It’s hard not to be angry and scared after reading her piece, as one feels duped and terrified to discover their body parts are essentially currency and data points for government contracts. Reading about fingerprint data and facial scans made me think of people who choose to endure body modifications in a variety of ways, like getting tech implants. One example is RFID chip implants that serve as keys to homes, cars, workplaces, and can even contain personal information sometimes. If we imagine an ideal world where Magnet’s concerns are addressed, users are aware of and consent to the use of the tech, and companies are transparent with their plans – would you get microchipped? If so, what would the chip do for you (ie hold medical information)?

Shoshana Amielle Magnet, When Biometrics Fail

Brave New World(s)

September 30, 2020

Stewart Brand produced the Whole Earth Catalog (WEC), a collection of tools and techniques. His aim was to provide knowledge to amateurs to develop a positive, sustainable society through direct participation. Is there a modern day equivalent to the Whole Earth Catalog?

Take, for instance, TikTok. Data controversies aside, TikTok enables the individual to conduct their own education, find their own inspiration, and share their adventure with whoever is interested. TikTok has taught me, an amateur, about skincare, foraging, pottery, coding, and small business hacks. Additionally, small communities have bubbled up within TikTok. Fred Turner goes on to explain that Brand established digital networks within which members of multiple communities could meet and collaborate and imagine themselves as members of a single community. Within TikTok, LGBTQ+ communities join with alt communities who join with cosplay communities, who all join together into a super community of members who support free love, inclusivity, rights for all, and other modern counterculture beliefs. It’s even suggested that TikTok communities were responsible for sabotaging a right-wing political convention, potentially making WEC’s vision of technology as a counterculture force a reality?

Introduction to Turner, Fred, From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Steward Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Uptopianism, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008).

Stewart Brand, “Whole Earth Catalog Purpose and Function

Claire Evans discusses the origin of the internet, the early intent of the space, and how it has evolved from a communicative technology to a consumptive technology. We are addicted to our devices and dependent on real-time updates to the point where our attention span has decreased dramatically. The internet of today is full of wicked problems, some addressed and some not by the leading tech companies that rule our lives. Data is hacked and stolen, consumers are ripped off, people are still being catfished. Evans encourages attempts at stemming these wicked problems by implementing values early in the design process, at the beginning. These mindful approaches, applied early and often, could produce more equitable systems with the world wide web. Easier said than done, and Rome wasn’t built in a day, but – is it too late? Can we really begin (or continue?) to reshape and rebuild the Internet to include more equitable systems? Despite the gloomy revelations of the inner workings of the titans of the tech industry, users still flock to the Amazons, Apples, Googles, and Facebooks of the world. So much seems so wrong with the world and with the Internet, sometimes it seems like we’ll never reach the light at the end of the tunnel. If there is hope, how can designers change our process to be more equitable? I don’t want just overarching “be better” advice, but more concrete steps, guidelines, resources, etc. Just as those involved with WEC, I am in a process of constant self-education, and I’m ready to learn.

Claire Evans – Interview clips with Design Nonfiction

I Own You Own We All Own

September 30, 2020

Although the projects of Sol Lewitt, Ben Fry, and Casey Reas all explore networked collaboration, investigations can still be made in regards to the idea of ownership. Sol Lewitt’s project “Wall Drawings” defined ownership by stating constraints like “the wall drawing is the artist’s art, as long as the plan is not violated.” But Fry and Reas’ project, Processing, the line between owner and contributor is more blurred.

Does participation in an open-sourced platform like Processing imply a willing surrendering of ownership? Let’s assume that Processing in itself, at its structural core, is owned by Fry and Reas. As a user and contributor to the system, am I still the owner of my code, even when it joins with Processing? Are we joint owners?

Can ownership be revoked? If the contribution of a community member does not improve the code, does not benefit the bigger picture, or doesn’t even work, can the contribution be denied? Open source communities in the same vein as Processing are appealing in their own right as many do not suffer at finding participants. Maybe the concept of ownership in networked collaborations is moot as the entire draw of the community is the literal and proverbial release of individual ownership to one’s work.

Referenced Readings

Ben Fry and Casey Reas, “Processing . . . ,” in Processing: A Programming Handbook for Visual Designers and Artists (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2012), 1–7.

Sol LeWitt, “Doing Wall Drawings,” Art Now 3, no. 2 (1971)