Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Design as Debate: The Thing Beyond the Object

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The In-Discipline of Design

Part of the book series: Design Research Foundations ((DERF))

  • 317 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Hippel (2006) and Baldwin et al. (2006).

  2. 2.

    Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004).

  3. 3.

    Zwick et al. (2008).

  4. 4.

    Sanoff (2000), Cross (1971) and Battarbee and Koskinen (2005).

  5. 5.

    Ingi Brown.

  6. 6.

    Luck (2003).

  7. 7.

    Lyotard (1984).

  8. 8.

    Agre (1997).

  9. 9.

    Boehner et al. (2005).

  10. 10.

    Gaver and Dunne (1999).

  11. 11.

    Gaver et al. (2004).

  12. 12.

    http://www.auger-loizeau.com/index.php?id=9

  13. 13.

    Gaver et al. (2010).

  14. 14.

    http://www.biojewellery.com/ (accessed in 2015, no longer accessible)

  15. 15.

    Le Masson et al. (2017).

  16. 16.

    Koskinen et al. (2011).

  17. 17.

    Gentes (2001).

  18. 18.

    In fact, the messages were screened by the author before being posted to eliminate any racist or pedophile messages.

  19. 19.

    The artist had started the whole project by receiving emails and posting them himself, but finally received too many of them and developed an application so that people could directly submit their message.

  20. 20.

    Gentes (2007).

  21. 21.

    Stallabrass (2003).

  22. 22.

    In an interview with the author.

  23. 23.

    Stallabrass (2003).

  24. 24.

    These reasons are published and discussed in a number of press articles: Les Inrockuptibles, Digipress, Libération. See Bertrand Gauguet, « Les secrets censurés de Nicolas Frespech ou comment Je ne suis plus un site », in Archée, avril 2002, http://archee.qc.ca. Voir aussi le récapitulatif de l’histoire de cette œuvre sur: http://www.20six.fr/lessecrets/

  25. 25.

    http://www.advancedinformatique.com/article.php/id/29

  26. 26.

    http://www.archee.qc.ca/ar.php?page=article&no=181

  27. 27.

    http://www.bugbrother.com/article185.html

  28. 28.

    http://www.le-national.com/frespech022002.html

  29. 29.

    http://www.visuelimage.com/ch/frespech/index.htm

    Je ne suis plus un site/ I am no longer a website

    http://www.uzine.net/breve656.html

    “Net art ta gueule

    Jeudi 20 décembre 2001. Même situation au 10 janvier 2002

    « … Ce site est. actuellement “prêté” et présenté sur le site de l’Ecole nationale des Beaux Arts de Lyon, dans le cadre de l’exposition “dévoler” qui a été organisée cet été.

    http://enbalyon.free.fr/frespech/index.html

    J’aimerais donc que vous m’aidiez à comprendre les vraies raisons de cette nouvelle forme de censure. Espérant que cette mauvaise expérience pourrait nous permettre de réfléchir sur les enjeux de l’art en ligne, du politique dans les choix artistiques, et espérer aussi un nouveau statut pour les “cyberéalisations”.

    Vous pouvez me contacter à cet E.mail: immonde@cicv.fr

  30. 30.

    http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Frespech

  31. 31.

    http://www.art-outsiders.com/archives4/default.htm

  32. 32.

    Becker (1982).

  33. 33.

    Saper (2001).

  34. 34.

    Saper (2001).

  35. 35.

    Grenier (2008).

  36. 36.

    Hymes (1974).

  37. 37.

    Gentes (2003).

  38. 38.

    Simondon (2001–2016).

  39. 39.

    Transhumance, January 2007.

  40. 40.

    Project ANR Transhumance, mail sent to the research team who works on the version n 770 of a Nokia tablet, January 2007: « Bonjour à tous, Pour info, des nouvelles du N800, la nouvelle tablette internet de Nokia.http://www.clubic.com/actualite-67883-n800-nokia-tablette-internet.html Et voilà, on est. sur du matériel obsolète!;-) A bientôt ».

  41. 41.

    Star and Griesemer (1989) p. 412.

  42. 42.

    Ibid., p. 413.

  43. 43.

    Interview of one of the researchers involved in both projects, 2008.

  44. 44.

    Smith (2009).

  45. 45.

    Smith (2009).

  46. 46.

    Simakova (2010).

  47. 47.

    Newton (2004).

  48. 48.

    Eckert and Stacey (2000).

  49. 49.

    Smith (2009).

  50. 50.

    Newton (2004).

  51. 51.

    Simondon (2001–2016).

  52. 52.

    Configurations, 2003, dossier « l’ethos scientifique : autorité, auctorialité et confiance dans les sciences », Le Marec, J., Babou, I., 2003, « De l’étude des usages à une théorie des « composites » : objets, relations et normes en bibliothèque », in Souchier, E., Jeanneret, Y., Le Marec, J., (dir.), 2003, Lire, écrire, récrire – objets, signes et pratiques des médias informatisés, Paris, BPI – Centre Pompidou, pp. 233–299.

  53. 53.

    Coleridge (1985).

  54. 54.

    Transhumance, interview with M. « La surface est. moins sensible que le Palm, il faut taper plusieurs fois pour entrer l’info » interview with P. « l’image était bonne mais il ne la voulait pas », interview with MB. « L’image n’apparaît pas comme validée si je suis très rapide ». interview with M. “je ne peux rien lire à cause du soleil”

  55. 55.

    Transhumance, interview with M « Valider une image. Mais ce n’est. pas une tâche en soi, elle n’apporte rien au jeu ». MB« ce qui me manque c’est. la carte finale »

  56. 56.

    Fallman (2008).

  57. 57.

    Ibid.

  58. 58.

    Dunne (2008).

  59. 59.

    Ibid.

  60. 60.

    Ibid. introduction p. XVI.

  61. 61.

    Ibid. preface p. XII.

  62. 62.

    Gaver (2012).

  63. 63.

    James Auger at RCA, or Alex Taylor at Microsoft research Cambridge for instance see EEAST, 2010, Practicing science and technology, performing the social, Trento, Italy

  64. 64.

    http://www.biojewellery.com/ (accessed in 2015- no longer accessible)

  65. 65.

    “Biojewellery is a collaborative project involving Tobie Kerridge and Nikki Stott, design researchers at the Royal College of Art, and Ian Thompson, a bioengineer at Kings College London, its aim is to bring the medical and technical processes of bioengineering out of the lab and into the public arena”.

  66. 66.

    See also Tobie Kerridge’s PhD thesis: Designing debate: the Entanglement of Speculative Design and Upstream Engagement, Goldsmith College, July 2015.

  67. 67.

    http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/

  68. 68.

    [1] ‘Knowledge Exchange between Academics and Business, Public and Third Sectors,’ Maria Abreu, Vadim Grinevich, Alan Hughes and Michael Kitson, uk-irc, (PDF)

    [2] ‘Excellence in Science: Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers,’ The Royal Society, 2006, (PDF)

    [3] ‘Report and action plan from the Science for All Expert Group,’ BIS, 2010, (PDF)

    [4] ‘Public Culture as Professional Science: Final report of the ScoPE project (Scientists on public engagement: from communication to deliberation,’ Kevin Burchell, Sarah Franklin and Kerry Holden, September 2009, (PDF)

  69. 69.

    Jeanneret (1994).

  70. 70.

    Jenny Hogan, Cultured bone offers novel wedding rings, New Scientist, 26 February 2005

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524884.900

  71. 71.

    http://envisiontec.com/products/3d-bioplotter/

  72. 72.

    http://www.biojewellery.com/project2.html (accessed in 2015 no longer accessible)

  73. 73.

    Gentes and Mollon (2015).

  74. 74.

    Koskinen et al., Design Research Through Practice.

  75. 75.

    Bardzell and Bardzell (2013).

  76. 76.

    Bardzell et al. (2013).

  77. 77.

    Seago and Dunne (1999).

  78. 78.

    Rickenberg (2008)

  79. 79.

    Morello (2000).

  80. 80.

    Manzini (2009).

  81. 81.

    Hatchuel et al. (2014).

  82. 82.

    Dourish (2004).

  83. 83.

    Höök et al. ii, (2003).

  84. 84.

    Boehner, critical technical practice.

  85. 85.

    Armytage (1966).

  86. 86.

    Auyang (2006).

  87. 87.

    Agre (1997)).

  88. 88.

    Agre (1997)).

  89. 89.

    Agre (1997)).

  90. 90.

    Beck (1992).

  91. 91.

    Lyotard (1979).

  92. 92.

    Habermas (1985).

  93. 93.

    Rochlitz (1998).

  94. 94.

    Genette et Goshgarian (1997).

  95. 95.

    Schaeffer (2000).

References

  • 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 

  • Armytage, W. H. G. (1966). A social history of engineering (2nd ed.). Cambridge: The MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auyang, S. Y. (2006). Engineering: An endless Frontier. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Battarbee, K., & Koskinen, I. (2005, mars). Co-experience: User experience as interaction. CoDesign, 1(1), 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity (1st ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, H. S. (1982). Art worlds. Berkley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (Ed.). (1971). Design participation: Proceedings of the Design Research Society’s conference. Manchester: Academy Editions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dourish, P. (2004). Where the action is: The foundations of embodied interaction (New Ed ed.). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunne, A. (2008). Hertzian Tales: Electronic products, aesthetic experience, and critical design. Cambridge, The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckert, C., & Stacey, M. (2000). Sources of inspiration: A language of design. Design Studies, 21, 528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fallman, D. (2008). The interaction design research triangle of design practice, design studies, and design exploration. Design Issues, 24(3), 4–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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.

  • Genette, G., & Goshgarian, G. M. (1997). The work of art. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • Gentes, A. (2003). “Art-titres” sur Internet : enjeux de l’énonciation curatoriale. Communications et Langages, 137, 88–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentes, A. (2007). L’intime à l’épreuve du réseau. Communication et langages, 152, 89–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Grenier, C. (2008). La revanche des émotions: essai sur l’art contemporain. Paris: Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1985). The theory of communicative action, Volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society (trans: McCarthy, T.). Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatchuel, A., Weil, B., & Collectif. (2014). Les nouveaux régimes de la conception : Langages, théories, métiers. Paris: Editions Hermann.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hymes, D. H. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics; an ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeanneret, Y. (1994). Ecrire la science – Formes et enjeux de la vulgarisation. Paris: PUF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskinen, I. K., et al. (2011). Design research through practice: From the lab, field, and showroom. Waltham: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Masson, P., Weil, B., & Hatchuel, A. (2017). Design theory. Methods and organization for innovation. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Lyotard, J.-F. (1979). La condition postmoderne (Editions de Minuit ed.). Paris, Les Éditions de Minuit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (1st ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manzini, E. (2009). New design knowledge. Design Studies, 30(1), 4–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morello, A. (2000, Autumn). Design predicts the future when it anticipates experience. Design Issues, 16(3), 35–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, S. (2004). Designing as disclosure. Design Studies, 25, 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Rickenberg, R. (2008, Spring). Interpretation, collaboration, and critique: Interview with Anthony Dunne. Journal of Design Management, 3(1), 22–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochlitz, R. (1998). L’art au banc d’essai: esthétique et critique. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanoff, H. (2000). Community participation methods in design and planning. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saper, C. J. (2001). Networked art. Minneapolis: University. of Minnessota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaeffer, J.-M. (2000). Adieu à l’esthétique. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Simondon, G. (2016). On the mode of existence of technical objects (trans: Malaspina, C.). Minneapolis: Univocal Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. (2009, June). Theatre of use: A frame analysis of information technology demonstrations Social Studies of Science, 39, 449–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stallabrass, J. (2003). Internet art. The online clash of culture and commerce. London: Tate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Hippel, E. (2006). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Codesign Lab, I3, Telecom ParisTech, Paris, France

    Annie Gentes

Authors
  1. Annie Gentes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gentes, A. (2017). Design as Debate: The Thing Beyond the Object. In: The In-Discipline of Design. Design Research Foundations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65984-8_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation