Download - Designing Towards the Unknown - Danielle Wilde€¦ · Designing towards the unknown: engaging with material and aesthetic uncertainty 3 would be like if yet-to-be-concretised technologies

DesignforNext

12thEADConferenceSapienzaUniversityofRome

12-14April2017

Copyright©2016.Thecopyrightofeachpaperinthisconferenceproceedingsisthepropertyoftheauthor(s).Permissionisgrantedtoreproducecopiesoftheseworksforpurposesrelevanttotheaboveconference,providedthattheauthor(s),sourceandcopyrightnoticeareincludedoneachcopy.Forotherusespleasecontacttheauthor(s).

Designingtowardstheunknown:engagingwithmaterialandaestheticuncertainty

DanielleWildea,b,JennyUnderwoodbaSDUDesign,UniversityofSouthernDenmark,KoldingbFashionandTextiles,RMITUniversity,Melbourne*Correspondingauthore-mail:[email protected]

Abstract:Newmaterialswith new capabilities demand newways of approachingdesign. The Poetic Kinaesthetic Interface project engages with this problematicdirectly. It uses unfolding processes informed by participatory, speculative andcritical design, in emergent actions, to design towards unknown outcomes, usingunknown materials. The impossibility and uncertainty of the task is proving asuseful as it is disruptive. At its most potent, it is destabilising expectations,aestheticsandprocesses:keepingus,ourcollaboratorsandvariedparticipantsinastateofunknowing,openingup the researchpotential to far-rangingpossibilities.We unpack the motivations driving the project. We present our mixed-method,which entangles textile crafts, design interactions and materiality to shape anembodiedenquiry.Ouroutcomesareproceduralandmethodological.Theprojectbrings together diverse human, non-human, known and unknown materials todiscover where the emergent assemblages might lead us. In doing so, we re-invigorateandre-envisionthedesignprocess.

Keywords: craft, materiality, embodied interaction, aesthetics, designprocess

1.Introduction

“Alchemyistheoldscienceofstrugglingwithmaterials,andnotquiteunderstandingwhatishappening”(Elkins2000:19).

ThePoeticKinaestheticInterfaceproject(PKI),investigateswhatwemightlearn,asdesigners,ifweholdourfocustightlyonastrugglewithas-yet-unknownmaterials.Canweengageproductivelywiththeunknownpotentialofas-yet-unknownmaterialsbycraftingembodiedinteractionsusingmaterialsthatarefamiliar?Mightinterweaving:embodiedengagementwithmateriality;andemergentinterimformsthatweexposetodifferentpublics;bringustometaphoricalclothsofgoldthatsuggestnewwaysforward?Mightalchemicalactsof“combiningorredirectingtheflowofthesematerialsinanticipationofwhatmightemerge”(Ingold,2010:9)holdakeytodesigningtowardstheunknown?

DANIELLEWILDE,JENNYUNDERWOOD

2

Inthisseaofquestions,wearenotlookingforanswers,perse.FollowingHaraway(2000),wearetryingtostaywiththetrouble.Howdodesignersdesigninsuchunstabletimes?Howdowedesigninthefaceofuncertainty?Howdowestaywiththistrouble,longenoughtofindnewwaysofresponding?

PKIisanongoingseriesofmovestowardsnewproceduresandmethodsfordesigninginthefaceofmaterialandaestheticuncertainty.Theprojecthashadfalsestartsandmissteps,andatmomentshasleaptlikeagazelle–withcrystalclearintentionsandpathwaysforward.Yetevenatsuchmoments,wedisruptourprocesstoreturnourselvestoastateofunknowingsothatwecanbecarefultoreallyfollowwhereouras-yet-unknownmaterialsmightwanttolead.Ingold(2010),assuresusthat“whatpeopledowithmaterials(…)istofollowthem,weavingtheirownlinesofbecomingintothetextureofmaterialflows”.InPKIweaskwhatmighthappenifweenablethematerialstouseus–thedesignersandourcollaborators–toweavetheirownlinesofbecoming?

Ouraimthusistoenablethematerialstoguideusmorepowerfullythantheydoinourcraftpractices.AsRosneretal.(2013)explain,howacraftspersonplayswiththeirmaterialsleadsthemtowardsfindingwhatitistheywanttomake.Inourcase,treatingtheconcepts,materialsandtechniquesatplayinthePKIprojectasmaterialelementsofourcraftpracticesisleadingustounderstandwhatitisthematerialsmightwantustodo.Sometimesitseemswelistenwell.Sometimeswemightlistenmorecarefully.Ineithercase,wehopetodiscoverifmaterialdesirescanassistustodesignintoanunknown.Materialthings,likepeople,areprocesses–theirrealagencyliespreciselyinthefactthat“theycannotalwaysbecapturedandcontained”(Pollard2004:60inIngold2010:8).Thisconceptisonlymorevalidinthesetimesofradicalmaterial–andeverything–flux.FollowingIngold’slead,wearethereforefollowingthematerials.

WedescribehereourmotivationsandthetheoreticalunderpinningsofthePKIproject,thenhowtheprojecthasunfoldedtodate.OurprocessesareinformedequallybyResearchthroughDesign,NewMaterialismandFeministTechnoscience.Theyareatonceemergent,participatoryandperformative.Theycombinetextilecraftswithinteractiondesigntoshapeparticipatory,embodied,speculativeengagementswithmateriality:bringingtogetherdiversehuman,non-human,knownandunknownmaterials–combiningandreconfiguringthem,redirectingtheirflow–todiscoverwheretheemergentassemblagesmightleadus.Aswewilldiscuss,thisentangledmethodologyisre-invigorating,asitre-envisionsthedesignprocess.

2.PKI:Motivations2.1ConceptualdriversPKIaimstochallengeandenrichtheconstrainednormofbody-typicaltoincludehypermobility,physicaldisability,andtheevolvingabilitiesofthematureorageingbody.Theprojectinterweaves:embodiedengagement,choreography,motioncapture,structuredtextileresearch,materialandspatialexplorations,garmentandobjectconstructionandpublicengagementinanemergentco-designprocess.Theaimistounderstand:

A. howtogivepeoplethefeelingofbeinginsomeoneelse’sbody,someonewithperhapsverydifferentabilitiesandconstraints

B. howdesignersmighteffectivelyprototypeadvancedmaterialinteractions,wherethecharacteristicsofthematerialsinquestionmightnotyetbeconcretised

C. howdesignersandscientistsmighteffectivelycross-fertiliseresearch-in-processwithpublicopinionsaroundthesocial,ethical,personal,politicalandculturalimplicationsofwhatlife


3

wouldbelikeifyet-to-be-concretisedtechnologieswerereadilyavailable,andpartofpeople’slives

Theobjectivesarefourfold,to:

1. developnewformsofembodiedandwearableinteractionsthatchallengeparticipants’notionsaroundtermssuchas:ability,disability,bodytypicalandnormativeornormal.

2. expandthewaysthatwe,asdesignresearchers,engagewithtechnologicalpotential.3. investigatehowdesignactionsmightaffordproductivecross-fertilisationofsocial

imaginariesandconcernswithscientificdevelopment,and4. ascertainwhether,orhow,doingsomightproductivelyinfluenceperceivedsocialrelevance

ofresearch.

Theseaimsandobjectivesareexploredinparallelin,withandthroughaparticipatory,embodiedResearchthroughDesign(RtD)processthatcraftsourinquiryintograspable,wearableandotherwiseem-body-able1form(c.f.Section3).Interimoutcomesaretestedinparticipatoryactionsthatrelyonem-body-ingdesign–situatingideation,engagement,interactionandevaluationin,with,andthroughtheexperientialhumanbody–toaccessembodiedparticipants’extra-discursivecapacities.Thisapproachanchorsdialogueinthepersonal,social,politicalandenvironmental,andenablesconversationstotakeplacethatotherwisemighteludearticulation.

2.2TheoreticaldriversWedescribeourmethodascraftingRtD,informedbyparticipatory,speculativeandcriticaldesign,NewMaterialismandFeministTechnoscience.Theresearchisthusinformedbytheoriesofpractice,andphilosophiesrelatingtoScienceandTechnologyStudies(STS),whichdestabiliseandtherebymovethethinking-andresearch-in-practiceforward.

Weuseanappliedaction-reflectionapproachtoRtD(Jonas,2007:189-192),wheretheemphasisisontheresearchobjectiveofcreatingdesignknowledge,notaprojectsolution.WehaveaScandinavian-inspiredapproachtoparticipation:collaboratingwithpeoplewhomighteventuallybeservedbyas-yet-unimagineddesigns,asco-creatorsintheprocess(Sanders,2008,pp.13-15).Theresultingresearch-in-practiceisconstructivistinitsunfolding.Materials,making,collaboratorandparticipantfeedbackaredrawnoninahermeneuticcyclebasedoncreativityandself-reflection:informationandfindingsareusedtomoveforward,butalsorevisitpreviousconsiderations(c.f.Mäkelä,2006).WhatemergesisaspeculativeandindeterminateprogressionreminiscentofwhatTimIngold(2006)termswayfindingincomparisontonavigation:feelingone’swayratherthanusingamap.Thiswayofworkingaffordsacontinualfeedbackmechanismthatisopen,flexibleandresponsive.Itenablesus,likecraftspeople,tocalibratethemotionsofouractionsindirectresponsetotheactionsjustperformed,andtherebyadvancetowardswheretheresearch,designenquiry,andparticipantreactionsleadateachmoment.

Theresultingdesignactionsconstituteanemerginghybridofnarrativesthatinformandareinformedbytheresearchconcerns.Theyuseembodied,post-disciplinaryanddisruptivestrategies(Wildeetal.,2015)toengagevariedsocialandtechnoscientificimaginaries.Thinking-through-making,-movingand-doingarekey.Asisusingthesociallyfamiliarcontextofcrafts(Adamson,2010)toengageparticipantstobringdifficulttoarticulateconceptstothescaleofthebody.Bringing

1Em-body-ableartefactscanbeengagedwiththroughthebody–nomattertheirformorscale.Theymaybemicroormacro,self-containedorsystemic,orotherwisematerially,physicallyorconceptuallychallengingintermsofwhathumanstypicallygrasporwear.


4

attentiontothebodyindiversewayssupportsdiversepublicstofindlanguageforcomplextopics.Itenlivensimaginariesandinvitescreative(re)positioningofeveryday,intimateexperiencesintoposthumanassemblages:wherethehumanperspectiveisbutoneamongmany(Braidotti,2006,p.41).InSociologyandtheNewMaterialismtheconceptofa‘research-assemblage’thatcomprisesresearcher,respondents,data,methodsandcontextsisproposed,asawayto

“assess,critiqueandpotentiallyengineerresearchmethodsandmethodologiesthatshifttherelationshipbetweenresearcher,researchedandaudience.”(Fox&Alldred,2016:11)

Suchanapproachacknowledgesthatacapacityfor‘agency’extendsbeyondhumanactorstothenon-humanandinanimate(Braidotti,2013;DeLanda,2006;Latour,2005),andopensresearchassemblagestonewformsofreading.If“[m]atterisnottobeevaluatedbyitsessence,butbyitscapacitiestoaffect”(Bennet,2010:3),takingaNewMaterialistapproachcanassistustoradicallydestabilisehowwemightotherwisereadparticipantactionsinaco-designcontext.Insteadoffocusingonthereactionsofhumanparticipants,wecanfocusonalloftheforces(oraffects)operatingatthelevelofactionsorevents(Fox&Alldred,2016:27),includingthoseinwhichourhumancollaboratorsmayplayarelativelyminorrole.

“[Thereare]nostructures,nosystemsandnomechanismsatworkinnewmaterialistontology;insteadthereareevents;anendlesscascadeofeventscomprisingthematerialeffectsofbothnatureandculturethattogetherproducetheworld”(vanderTuinandDolphijn,2010:7)

Thiswayofthinkingopensthewaytoresponsivelycraftthedifferent–humanandnon-human–elementsinourresearchprocess.AsHirdandRoberts(2011:115)stress,the:

“...vitalityandurgencyofthequestionsraisedbyattemptstoaddressthemultiplewaysinwhichnonhumanactors(betheyrats,aliens,syringes,robots,plastinatesorvirtualdeer)affectwhoweareandhowwe(might)live”.

Bytakingsuch‘things’seriously,theyhave

“cometorecognizemorefullyhowthese[things]cometobeconstitutedandthoughtinandthroughparticularworldsinwhich‘wehumans’arebutonenominatedsetofplayers”.(ibid.)

AccordingtoLindström&Ståhl(2014),suchanapproach:

“meansnotonlytoopenupthebody,butalsotoopenuptechnologyasmaterialsthatarerelatedinsomewhatstabilizedways,butwhichcanberearranged.”

Bypaying“attentiontothediscursiveandmaterial,inonemove,throughrecognizingrelationalityandco-constitutionofagency”theyarguethat“Feministtechnoscience(..)helpstheresearchertogobeyondonlyconsideringtheconcernsoftheuser.”(ibid.)

InPKIwearespeculatingpossibleaestheticsfornewmaterialtechnologiesthatmighthelpustothinkindifferentways.Feministtechnoscienceandnewmaterialistontologiesassistustothinkinnewwaysthroughourdesignresearchpractices.Theythusprovidepotentlensesthroughwhichtoengagewithourunknowns.


5

3.PKI:CraftingDesignInteractions3.1WeavingawayforwardFromatheoreticalaswellaspracticalperspective,PKIisextremelydynamic.Itleansontextilecraftsandinteractiondesigntosupportdynamicrelationsbetween:emergingmaterials,em-body-mentinsocialimaginaries,anddisabilityaesthetics.Themakingleansheavilyontextilecrafts,interaction,participatoryandspeculativedesign,usingthesocialfamiliarityofcraftstoenableustoreachabroadaudience.Partnerscomefromscientificanddesignbackgrounds,aswellasperformanceanddisability.Participantscomefromdiversepublicsconstitutedatculturalandcommunityevents,specialistforaandpop-uphappenings(c.f.Wildeetal.,2014&2015).

PKI,todate,consistsoftwophases:

PhaseIbeganwithmotioncaptureexperimentswithfouralternately-abledcreativeprofessionals,andculminatedinopen,participatoryactionswithdiversepublics;

PhaseIIinvolvesclosercollaborationwithmaterialsscientistsandengineers,andfurtheropenexperiments.

Thedesignactionsareusedtoprobeparticipantrelationshipstodivergentbodiesandtechnologies.Theyareshapedasframeworks-for-thinking,anduseinterimoutcomes,ratherthanconceptuallycompletedartefactstoexposeourthinkingtopublicscrutinyasitevolves,ratherthanwaitinguntilconceptsareneatlyformed.Thisapproachenablesustocarefullycraftspeculativeinterventionsusingfamiliarmaterials,toproposeyet-to-be-imaginedmaterialsandtechnologiesforas-yet-unknownapplications.Theprobesareconceptuallyambiguous,andservetopromptpeopletoimagineandexpressnovelideas.

Tostructuretheseactionswedrawonthemetaphoricallanguageofweaving,positingeachparticipatoryeventasaloom.Inourlooms,thewarpisthedynamicconstellationoftheevolvingprobes,andtheweftisthepublic’sengagementandresponsestotheseprobes,asguidedbythevariedweavers:usresearchersandourvariedhumanandnon-humancollaborators.Thisconstructisprovingextremelyuseful.Theinteractionbetweenthewarpelementsandourdynamicweftisenablingdifferentformationsandpatternstoemerge,whichwepositasmetaphoricalcloths:thealchemicalclothsofgold,alludedtointheintroduction.Thesecloths,whenhandledindifferentways,privilegedifferentperspectives:theyconceptuallyandtheoreticallyembodydifferentrelationshipsbetweentheresearchideas,probesandparticipantresponses.Theythusservetoguideourthinking,movingforward.Wenowdescribetwoloomsinconcreteterms.

3.2TwoloomsOurphase1LoomwaspresentedatTheNationalGalleryofVictoriainAustralia(LeAmon,2014).Inthisloomwelimitedexplorationstowhatwecall:no-tech:usingnocontemporary,neworemergentdigitalorbiologicaltechnologies.2Threeseriesofprobesweredevelopedforthisloom:

(1) GreenKnits(Fig.1,top):graspablestructuresthatemergeddirectlyfromresearchintobiotensegrity–theinterplayofcompressionandtensioninthehumanbody(Schleip,etal.2012).Theseprobesserveasamaterialguideformoving,aswellasunderstandinghowtomove,linkingthecognitivewiththekinaestheticandproprioceptiveinunexpectedways

2Foranextendeddiscussionofno-tech,low-techandemerging-oryet-to-be-imagined-techpleasesee(Wilde,etal.,2015)


6

Figure1.Loom1probe-sets(1–3):GreenKnits(top),BlueCushions(centre),Sleeves(bottom).

(2) BlueCushions(Fig.1,centre):feltedwoollumpsthatserveassweetdeformitiesortemporaryscarsthatcanbeputonandtakenoffatwill.Theseprobesplacepressureondifferentmusclegroupsandnervepathwaystochangeperceptionofmovement.

(3) Sleeves(Fig.1,bottom):curiouspartial-garmentsthataltermovementpathwaysthroughtheimpositiononthewearer’sbodyofahiddenorconstantlyshiftingmaze.Togetherthesethreeseriesofprobesconstitutedourfirstwarp.(see:Wilde,etal.,2014)

OursecondloomwassetupinDenmark,duringtheDesignResearchSocietyExperientialKnowledgeSpecialInterestGroupannualconference(EKSIG2015)atDesignSchoolKolding.Wehadathree-weekresearchresidencyattheDesignSchoolbeforesettingupourloom,duringwhichweundertookarangeofexperimentswithmaterialandembodiedinteractions.Wefocusedonbothno-


7

andknown-tech,toinvestigatewhatmightemergeifwedidwhatwealreadyknew.UnlikethePhase1loom,whichwasopentoabroadrangeofparticipants,thisloomwasdesignedfirstandforemostforthetextileanddesignresearcherswhowouldbeattendingtheconference.Theseconferenceparticipantswouldknowalotabouttheprojectbeforetheyengagedwithit,havingseenapresentationofthework.Thisknowledgeimpactedourdecision-makingprocess.Weatoncewantedtoexperimentwithextremeopen-ness,andleveragethebackgroundknowledgeandfindingsfromLoom1.Thethreeprobe-setsthatresulted(Fig.2–4)are:

(1) Embodiedpaperprototypes(Fig.2):dynamicformsdevelopedthroughanembodiedprototypingprocess3.Eachformopensandclosesinvariousways,dependingonhowtheyareplacedonthebodyandhowthewearermoves.Thepurposeofthisprobe-setistoinvestigate(a)howparticipantsmightengagewithformsthatcanbeplacedanywhereonthebody,and(b)whetherdoingsomightimpactapersons’understandingofthebodyinmovement,andinwhatway.

Figure2.Loom2probe-set(1):EmbodiedPaperPrototypes

3Thisprobe-setwasdevelopedbyMaryKaridaandEricaVannucci,studentsfromTheUniversityofSouthernDenmark


8

(2) Creatures+Straps(Fig.3):diverseknittedelements.TheCreaturesareinspiredbytransparentmarineanimalsthat–likealiencreatures–canhugthebodyindifferentways,andindoingsodynamicallyaltertheirform.Theseshapechangecapabilitieswereinformedbytheembodiedpaperprototypingexperiments,thepossibilitiesandconstraintsaffordedbymachine-knitting3Dstructures,andourPhase1findings(Wilde,etal.,2014).TheStrapsareinspiredbykinbaku-bi–aformofJapanesebondagethatfocusesontheaestheticsoftying,knottingandconstrainingthebody[Midori,2001],againinformedbyourfindingsfromPhase1.Thisprobe-setrepresentsaseriesofaestheticleaps,andisconceptuallyfarmoresophisticatedthantheotherprobe-setsinthisloom.

Figure3.Loom2probe-set(2):Creatures+Straps


9

(3) Sensors+Sounds(Fig.4):hand-madetextilestretchsensorspatchedintoacomputerrunningtheMaxsoundprogrammingenvironment4.Thesesensorswereaestheticallymatchedtotheseacreatures,astheywereoriginallyintendedtoformpartofthesameprobe-set.Wekeptthemseparatefortworeasons.First,wewantedparticipantstodetermineinwhatwaysthedifferentprobe-setsmightbepaired,withoutbeingguidedbyourprompting.Second,byseparatingsonicfeedbackfromthevisualandphysicalfeedbackprovidedinprobe-sets(1)and(2),wehopedtoobservehowparticipantbehaviourmightdifferinresponsetothedifferentsensorialtrigger.Thesonicinteractionsofthisprobe-setweredevelopedbystudentsfromTheUniversityofSouthernDenmarkandDesignSchool,Kolding.

Figure4.Loom2probe-set(3):Sensors+Sounds

ComparedtoLoom1,Loom2wasfarmoreopenintermsofhowtheprobe-setsmightbepairedwiththebody.Theprobe-setswerealsounevenintermsoftheirconceptualsophistication.Incontrast,theprobe-setsforLoom1satalongaclearlyidentifiablespectrum,andwereequallymatchedintermsofmateriallanguage(Author,2014).

Onanalysis,theopen-ness,andmismatchinLoom2wastooextremetogainusefulinsightsfromtheinteractionsbetweenwarp,weftandloom.Theresultingmetaphoricalclothsseemeddull,uninspiring–attimestooopentobeabletounderstand,atothertimestootightlywound.ItseemedtheLoom2probe-sets–aswarp–leftparticipantswithoutenoughstructure.Therewasnothingforthemtoholdontowhenconsideringhowto‘play’theirpotential.Incontrast,thespecificityoftheLoom1probe-setsenabledparticipantstopositionthemselvespowerfullyinrelationtotheirstrange

4Thisprobe-setwasdevelopedbyMirzelAvdic,FerranAltarribeBertranandKeyuYu,studentsfromTheUniversityofSouthernDenmarkandDesignSchoolKolding(onexchangefromTongjiUniversity,China).


10

familiarity.Thecoherencyoftheprobe-setsinLoom1–intermsofhoweachshouldbeused–alsoassistedparticipantstocommittoengaging.

Regardlessofwhatfeltlikeaset-back,theconstructoftheloomwashelpful.Itslowedourthinkingdownandprovidedspaceforgreaterreflection,asourreflectionsneededtobecoherentwithourmetaphoricalconstruct,aswellasourresearchconcerns.Overthecourseofthetwolooms,wegleanedthefollowinginsightsintothebenefitsandlimitationsofthisapproach:

• Craft’ssoft logicprovidesaframeworkthatbothsupportsandsuggestsalternativewaysofworking that are open and flexible, yet robust. The confidence this robustness engenderssupportsrisktakinginusresearchersand,webelieve,theparticipantsinourdesignactions.

• The social and performative nature of craft acts as a rich site for inviting and opening upexchangesofideas(Ravetz,2013).

• Exposing an audience to relatively unformed research, and researchers to audienceresponsesatearlystagesoftheworkiseffective(ifnotalwayssatisfying).

• Thelevelofcommitmentaparticipantbringstotheirparticipationwithexperimentalprobe-sets,iscoupledtobothconceptualresolutionandeaseofuse.

• Warpingaloomwithconceptuallyandmateriallyunevenprobescanchallengeparticipants’ability to engage with the unresolved nature of the work, whereas series of prototypes,developed to a similar level of conceptual or material sophistication, better affordstriangulation,andthereforestructureandengagement.

Whileitremainsuncleartowhatresolutionourartefactsultimatelyneedtobedevelopedforustoarriveatsomekindofmaterialandaestheticcertainty.Orifindeed,certaintyisevenrequired.Whatisclearisthatconstantlydestabilisingourbeliefsandhabitsasdesigner–researchersthroughtheuseofourloommetaphorisprovingasfruitfulasitischallenging.Keepingourselvesinastateofunknowingaffordsgreatersensitivitytowheretogonext.

4.ReflectionsThepurposeofthispaperisnottoreflectontheresultsofourloom,perse,buttoreflectontheusefulnessofanentangledmethodologythatconverges:theoriesonpractice;practice;theoriesonthinking;andthinking.BringingnewmaterialistandfeministtechnoscienceontologiesintoacraftedRtDprocessisenablingustoforegroundnon-humanalongsidehumanagency,whichishelpingdisruptassumptionswemightmakeintermsofunderstandingourdata.

Theprojectcombinestextilecraftswithinteractiondesigntoshapeparticipatory,embodied,speculativeengagementswithmateriality:bringingtogetherdiversehuman,non-human,knownandunknownmaterials–combiningandreconfiguringthem,redirectingtheirflow–todiscoverwheretheemergentassemblagesmightleadus.Wearethuscraftingpractice-based,practice-ledandpractice-oriented,criticaldesignresearch;withanexpandedviewofcraft,asafundamentallysocialwayofworkingwithpeoplethroughthemediumandintelligenceofmateriality(Adams,2014:20).

Withthisentangledapproach,weareliterallyweavingourwayforward:fromaloomasstructuralsupportforresearchpracticeandengagement,towardsaflattenedhierarchyinformedbyfeministtechnoscience.Theweaversincludeallofthedifferentplayers:humanandnon-human.Thenon-humanmaterialsareweavingtheirwayforwardtonewbecomings.Thehumanparticipantsareweavingclothsofemergentunderstandings:ofdiversebodies,newmaterialsandapproachestoembodiedlivingandengagement.We,designresearchers,areweavingnewunderstandingsofnewaestheticsinrelationtonewmaterials,aswellasnewphilosophicalunderstandingsofhowtoreadourresearchactions.Theweavingthusengagesusinfuture-making:weavingmaterialcultureand


11

imagination.“[M]akingasweavingemphasizesthemutualrelationshipbetweenmakerandmaterial”(Goett,2016:127),which“continuallyandendlesslycom[es]intobeingaroundusasweweave”(Ingold,2000:64).Ourloom,thusisfreeingusfromrelyingontestedmethodsthatmaynotbeappropriatetoyet-to-be-concretisedmaterials.

Thereisstrongprecedenceoftextilebasedcraftmetaphorsastoolsforthinking:devicesforelaboratingnewmeaning,andcommunicatingprocessesthatmaybecomplexandnon-reductiveinform.Researchersarere-thinkingart,aestheticsandknowledgeproductionthroughmetaphorssuchas“spinningtoelaboratenewmeanings”(Jefferiesetal.,2016:4)and“patchworkingwaysofknowing”(Lindström&Ståhl,2016):bothtoknowandtomaketheworldinonemove.Butdoessuchanapproachofferanewfoundation?AjunAppaduri(2014:9)positsdesignasapracticethatcontinuouslyreimaginesitsownconditionsofpossibility,drawingfocustotheforcesofmaterialityinrelationtodesign.Hewrites:

“materialitycanbeviewedasadesigncontext,anddesigncanbetreatedasaformofvibration(inthesenseofJaneBennett’sideaof“vibrantmatter”)thatdisturbsandcreativelyanimatesthematerialworldandaddsnewformsofmovementtoalreadymovinganddynamicmaterials.”(ibid:9-10)

Byholdingstronglytodesignas“immanent:neverfinished,alwaysinprogress”(Yelavich&Adams,2014:15),weareengagingwiththeseideasasaprocessofbecoming.ReturningtoPollard,inIngold:materialthings,likepeople,areprocesses–theirrealagencyliespreciselyinthefactthat“theycannotalwaysbecapturedandcontained”(2004:60,in2010:8).Wearethustryingtostaywiththetroublethatnewmaterialsbring,inthehopethatbydoingso,whiledestabilisingourpracticesandtherebyourexpectations,wemightbeabletobringthealchemicalgoldofanewaestheticintobeing.Byintertwiningvariedandvaryingperspectivesonourconcernsthus,ourresearchisenabledtounfoldasanemergent—openandresponsive—activitythatmayattimesdivergedynamicallyfromintendedplanning.Ittherebyallowsustoexaminehowtocraftaresponsetothemanyquestionsdrivingourinquiry.

5.ConclusionsPKIisalive,volatileprocess,understoodinthesenseofDewey’s‘experience’(2005).Ratherthanfittingclearlyintorecognisabledomains,theprobesanddesignactionsofPKI,theinterimoutcomesandmetaphoricalresearchcloths,definetheirowndomain.Together,theyenableus:designresearchers,humanandnon-humancollaborators,tobreakwithlimitationsandpre-conceivednotionsaroundwhatmaterialsmightwishtobecome.Ourentangledapproachgivesrisetounexpectedresponsestocomplexproblems,deepenedunderstandingoftheproblemsasaresult,propositionsforongoingactions,andare-evaluationofdiverseperspectivesonresearchrigorthatmightbeheldbydisciplinessuchasmaterialsscienceorparticipatoryspeculation.

Ourintention,movingforward,remainstodesigntowardsunknownoutcomes,usingunknownmaterials.Inparticular,wewillfocusmorekeenlyonourmetaphoricalresearchcloths.Weanticipatethattheimpossibilityanduncertaintyofthistaskwillcontinuedestabilisingexpectations,aestheticsandprocesses;keepingusdesignresearchers,ourhumanandnon-humancollaborators,inastateofunknowingthatwillopenuptheresearchpotentialtofar-rangingpossibilities.Byapplyinganalyticalframeworksfromnewmaterialismandfeministtechnosciencetoourinterimoutcomes,aswellasourunderstandingoftheunfoldingprocesses,webelieveourfindingswillcontinuetore-invigorateandre-envisionthedesignprocess,andtherebykeepit,andus,inaconstantprocessofbecoming.


12

ReferencesAdams,B.(2014)CraftingCapacities.In:Yalavich&Adams(eds.)DesignasFuture-Making.London

andNewYork:Bloomsbury.Adamson,G.2010.TheCraftReader.Berg.Appaduri,A.ForwardtoYelavich,S.AndAdams,B.(eds.)(2014)DesignasFuture–Making.London

andNewYork:Bloomsbury.Bennet,J.(2010)VibrantMatter:apoliticalecologyofthings.DurhamandLondon,DukeUniversity

Press.Braidotti,R.(2006)Transpositions.Cambridge:Polity.

Braidotti,R.(2013)ThePosthuman.Cambridge:Polity.DeLanda,M.(2006)ANewphilosophyofSociety.London:Continuum.

Dewey,J.(2005(1934)).ArtasExperience.Perigee(Penguin)Elkins,J.(2000)WhatPaintingIs,London,Routledge.Fox,N,andAlldred,P.(2016).SociologyandtheNewMaterialism:Theory,Research,Action.Sage.Goett,S(2016)‘Materials,MemoriesandMetaphors:TheTextileSelfRe/collected’,pp121-136in

Jefferies,J.,WoodConroy,D.andClark,H.(eds),TheHandbookofTextileCulture,Bloomsbury,London.

Jefferies,J.,WoodConroy,D.andClark,H.(eds),(2016)TheHandbookofTextileCulture,Bloomsbury,London.

Haraway,D.(2000)Howlikealeaf:AninterviewwithThyrzaNicholsGodeve.NewYork&London:Routledge.

Hird,M.J.&Roberts,C.(2011).Feminismtheorisesthenonhuman.InFeministTheory,12(2):109-117.

Ingold,T.(2000)Makingcultureandweavingtheworld,pp.50–71inGraves-Brown,P.(ed.),Matter,MaterialityandModernCulture,London,Routledge.

Ingold,T.(2006)Walkingtheplank:meditationsonaprocessofskill.InDefiningtechnologicalliteracy.NY:PalgraveMacmillan.

Ingold,T.(2010).BringingThingstoLife:Creativeentanglementswithmaterials.ESRCNationalCentreforResearchMethodsWorkingPaper#15.NCRMWorkingPaperSeries5/10

Jefferies,J.(2016)‘EditorialIntroduction’,pp.3-16inJefferies,J.,WoodConroy,D.andClark,H.(eds),TheHandbookofTextileCulture,Bloomsbury,London.

Jonas,W.(2007).DesignResearchanditsMeaningtotheMethodologicalDevelopmentoftheDiscipline.InR.Michel(Ed.),DesignResearchNow(pp.187-206).Basel:Birkhäuser.

Latour,B.(2005)ReassemblingtheSocial:AnIntroductiontoActorNewtworkTheory.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

LeAmon,S.(curator)MelbourneNow.NationalGalleryofVictoria,International,Melbourne.2014.http://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/melbournenow

Lindström,Kristina,&ÅsaStåhl.(2014)Patchworkingpublics-in-the-making:design,mediaandpublicengagement.PhDDiss.,MalmöUniversity,Sweden.

Lindström,Kristina,&ÅsaStåhl.(2016)‘PatchworkingWaysofKnowingandMaking’,pp.65-78inJefferies,J.,WoodConroy,D.andClark,H.(eds),TheHandbookofTextileCulture,Bloomsbury,London.

Mäkelä,M.(2006)Framing(a)practiceledresearchproject.InTheArtofResearch.UniversityofArtandDesign,Helsinki.60-85


13

Pollard,J.2004.Theartofdecayandthetransformationofsubstance.InSubstance,memory,display,eds.C.Renfrew,C.GosdenandE.DeMarrais.Cambridge:McDonaldInstituteforArchaeologicalResearch,pp.47-62.

Ravetz,A.,Kettle,A.andFelcey,H.(ed.)2013.Collaborationthroughcraft.Bloomsbury.

Rosner,D.,Ikemiya,M.,Kim,D.,Koch,K.DesigningwithTraces.InProc.CHI2013,1649-1658,2013

Sanders,L.(2008).AnEvolvingMapofDesignPracticeandDesignResearch.Interactions,15(6)13-17

Schleip,R.Findley,T.,Chaitow,L.,andHuijing,P.Fascia;thetensionalnetworkofthehumanbody.ChurchillLivingstoneElsevier,London,2012

vanderTuin,I.andDolphijn,R.(2010)Thetransversalityofnewmaterialism.Women:ACulturalReview,21(2):153–171.

Wilde,D.,Underwood,J.Pohlner,R.(2014).PKI:CraftingCriticalDesign.DIS2014,TheACMConferenceonDesigningInteractiveSystems.Vancouver,Canada,June21-25,2014

Wilde,D.,Underwood,J.Pohlner,R.(2015)CraftingMaterialInnovation.InEKSIG2015.DesignResearchSocietySpecialInterestGroup:ExperientialKnowledge(2015):21-33.

Yelavich,S.AndAdams,B.(eds.)(2014)DesignasFuture–Making.LondonandNewYork:Bloomsbury.

AbouttheAuthors:

DanielleWildeisAssociateProfessor,EmbodiedDesignattheUniversityofSouthernDenmark,KoldingandAdjunctProfessor,FashionandTextilesResearch,RMITUniversity,Melbourne.Sheinvestigateshowembodiedwaysofknowing,participationandcraftmightshapetheemergingaestheticsoffuturewearables.

JennyUnderwoodisSeniorLecturerinTextileDesignfortheSchoolofFashionandTextiles,RMITUniversity,Australia.Herresearchispractice-basedexploringsurfaceandform,3dshapeknittingandparametricdesigntocreatenewmaterialstructuresandsensoryexperiences.

Acknowledgements:Wegratefullyacknowledge:ArtsVictoria,BesenFamilyFoundation,SidneyMyerFoundation,ourPhaseIchoreographer/movers,SimoneLeAmon;everyoneattheNationalGalleryofVictoria;RichardLehner,AnneLouiseBang,everyoneatDesignSchoolKolding,JonasLeonasandourPhaseIIstudentcollaborators:MaryKarida,EricaVanucci,MirzelAvdic,FerranAltarribaBertranandKeyuYu.