How do we teach it? The tools are seen to be inadequate yet in its imperfection it's still useful.
LCA: a way of teaching designers about the mesh.
LCA a fantastic way of getting designers out of what is their primary starting and end point.
“I don't understand in an OOO way that the thing has its own reality. I don't acknowledge that this is only a temporary assemblage.”
Exit from the Looking Glass House of beautiful soul via decisionism.
Cameron: “Fuck it, I'm going to make it anyway. Experimentalism.” Designers have to make an intervention. This is what terrifies the New School for Social Research. “Critique! Caution!”
Clive: counterfactual evidence that forces innovative thinking. There is no perfect algorithm.
(Me: You can't decide in advance whether an algorithm will stop.)
Clive: Algorithm as designed entity. Technology as a small part of design. Algorithms as withdrawn. They just execute. Configuring things. Tech should be reframed as underneath the taking-responsibility-for of design.
Allan: how do you factor the future into the teaching. It seems key to design.
Cameron: It's not there yet! There's no or almost no consideration of scenario planning, foresighting, what will happen in 2050, etc.
Students have an oppressive presentism.
Daemian: trying to respond to multi-layered problems and offering multi-layered solutions? One delivery mechanism. Bright green naivety. But we should be looking for as many win-wins as we can.
Pleasure and sustainability versus sustainability versus money...
No comments:
Post a Comment