Michael Carbaugh

Images from my BFA exhibition can be viewed here

After completing my first exhibition where I was given a space to do whatever I would like to, I’ve felt much more reassured about considering my design work as a body. Considering all of the work in a particular space allowed me to see where work conceptually overlaps and also was my first opportunity to see the studio work I have done in context with my design work. I felt looking at all of these together was significant to my development and is a great point of departure for what I’ll do next.

In many ways the show feels less of a kind of closure than a starting point where my strongest ideas may open up in the future. In the fall I hope that more extensive research and the ability to focus more solely on design will allow my work to be conceptually stronger and I also hope to design for more complex systems that require many types of resources to fully understand. I’ve been very happy with my progression in the past four years in my design work, especially how my conceptual awareness has developed, but I think the potential of my strengths lies greatest in projects that are from the start extremely complex.

The experience of hanging the show was positive and allowed for a lot of freedom; fortunately, that didn’t become overwhelming. Because of the consistency in the work I chose to show the hanging and use of space wasn’t too complicated. My greatest hope with the show is that viewers see the correlation between my interests and ideas and the final projects that are presented. Perhaps one of my greatest hopes would be that people would feel that research is evident through a finished project without needing to look at anything else.

Response to:

“Toward a Definition of the Decorational (In Real Time)” by Denise Gonzales Crisp. Appears in the book Design Research: Methods and Perspectives edited by Brenda Laurel, published by MIT Press.

Attempting to capture more about the idea of research and its relationship to design rather than having a design ‘question’ and finding a resolute answer, Gonzales Crisp’s self-awareness of the act of writing is clearly exposed. Rather than write about decoration through constructing a concise and structural argument the essay becomes documentation of exploration, showing how research can do much more than just answer questions-it can lead to more and more questions that support further investigation on a topic. The choice to approach writing about personal research in this way is a great example of a staple saying that has been heavily introduced in human-centered design, form follows content. This essay strives both to investigate important ideas and use writing style and approach as a way to support ideas at the same time.

Utilizing her self-awareness early on, Gonzales Crisp makes a statement about the idea of the research very clear: “the content of the research and the process of making it research are emerging simultaneously, in real time “(94). Although pushing the idea of ‘real time’ through writing, by means of extra documentation of some sort, may push the form follows content idea further, the general awareness of her two-pronged methodology resonates strongly through the writing. Much of the essay discusses Corbusier’s opinions on eliminating ‘decoration’ and the general consensus of this action in modernism. What becomes particularly important is the emphasis on discovery while writing, shown most clearly through points marked “Toward a Definition of the Decorational” that are placed throughout the essay, exploring through comparative analysis what the word could possibly signify in the context of design.

The implications of accepting decoration and accepting a radical expansion of boundaries becomes what is celebrated through decoration and it justified for its cultural, instinctual, and intellectual significance. Once again, what may in some respects have similarities to human-centered design is a notion that choices made in the design process have a particular kind of significance and have relevance to the content. Decoration also is “true to now,” alluding that the choice to use it is appropriate to the context (99).

The approach to writing this essay has not only provided a convincing argument of decoration’s relevance, but is also provoking because it allows for so many ideas to branch from it. Through personal experience as a designer I feel forced to question if the nature of decoration in design can be independent by any means. Corbusier’s ideas of departing from decorating certainly sound understandable, but how can utilizing any kind of artificial structure such as mathematics be a way of escaping decoration? Design is completelly dependent on a synthetic relationship with nature and assessing what is ‘not decoration’ and what is ‘decoration’ seems terribly difficult to distinguish. To support this problem, Gonzales Crisp cites architect Peter Blake’s observations that “Much of the time, form is nothing more than an educated guess about function…” and that “Much of the time, form in modern architecture is anti-functional” (97). If the architecture has elements that aren’t functional, aren’t they decoration?

In graphic design these problems are also abundant, particularly in typography. Legibility has always been a factor in deciding the “ultimate typeface,” especially in typographer’s work like Adrian Frutiger. Research continues to support many directions, alluding that legibility may be an issue not as significant as it has been made out to be. When choosing a typeface, how can that issue really be addressed? It seems typography is an especially good example that design cannot escape from decoration; after all, most typefaces within general categories (that aren’t fixed) have slight differences where the aesthetic harmony with the rest of design seems to be the determining factor. Perhaps a constructive way to view typography is not just to make everything legible and pleasant, but to acknowledge that typography must be some sort of decoration so it is most appropriate to assess choices through looking at the content. Typography can become cultural, social, expressive and relevant to its purpose rather than transmit written language most efficiently.

Presentation given at the Des Moines Art Center on November 14, 2009 as part of the 20×2010: Big Ideas for 2010 and Beyond Lecture Series.

Bridging the Cap: Content and Context as Vehicles for Interpretation

Projects referenced in the presentation are shown below.

Diversity Panel Discussion Invitation, designed as an intern at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago under Scott Reinhard

Cover of Periphery Issue 46

Section Title Page from Periphery 46

Writing and Art Spreads from Periphery 46

First Fridays Ad, designed as an intern at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago under Scott Reinhard

Response to:

“Interdisciplinary Design Research” by Patrik Svensson. Appears in the book Design Research: Methods and Perspectives edited by Brenda Laurel, published by MIT Press.

From the very beginning of Svensson essay there is a sense of awareness towards what interdisciplinary actually is that seems to differ to  most incomplete notions: interdisciplinary research is not simply a means of adding other well-established subjects to an area of inquiry, but permeating boundaries between readily established categories and forcing new terminology for organizing information over and over again. This is difficult because the information is scattered among different parts in the first place, initially bound by preconceived notions prior to the engagement in the research. Because the preexisting boundaries are defined in a particular way, discipline-specific jargon and use of language can become an added difficulty  in participating in this kind of research. This requires a graphic designer not only to be a graphic design, but to be knowledgeable in surrounding fields that clearly intersect in particular ways.

Approaches to getting around the difficulties in interdisciplinary research are slim, but one way that seems potentially effective is to first understand a range of the aspects surrounding the research: Svensson uses the example of digital culture and includes a range consisting of “cyberspace, spatial design, virtual reality, online communication, virtual communities, online environments, social aspects of online life, embodiment (or its converse), socialization, identity, reputation, immersion, interfaces, hypertext, narratives, blogs, digital art, computer games and emergence” (195). This list is lengthy yet necessary because it proves that narrowing down a focus in a general category significantly helps the researcher understand where to look. From a more specific aspect of digital culture, it is easier to think about it in a more relational way. This point foward the  immersion “node,” a component on a chart which  maps relationships in digital culture, is explored to question the cultural conventions it currently has. Typically immersion is associated with high budget expensive graphics and experiential environments tinged with an emphasis on the digital recreation of ‘reality.’ Svensson notes that one of the heavily emphasized goals of this field is simply “not creating headaches” (196). The assumptions in this industry are questioned through an interdisciplinary lens that asks how these environments can have ‘real social depth’ rather than contributing to simple notions of creating virtual experience.

Following investigation through other lenses, questions arise for Svensson that problematize the foundations of this field. If other sources than intuition are considered when making graphics for example, the designers may ask themselves if it is really necessary for ‘realistic’ environments to be produced when the audience tends to use it to look for faults. In a virtual environment, does it make the most sense to have visual information where the audience can fill in some of their own images in their head? Svensson notes that even literary criticism may be an extremely helpful component because it heavily deals with representation and interpretation, ideas that must be carefully considered for successful design. Successful Magical Realist literature can help explain how these ideas can be treated, social communities can be studied to see how people interact, and further interdisciplinary research can be combined to find new uses for something that may seem to be based on entertainment. Ideas from many fields begin to converge and link between each other forming a synthesis with technology instead of letting the medium dominate the construction of the design. From this point, new ideas emerge where technology lends itself useful to many people: successful virtual learning environments (much, much better than BlackBoard) can be created and immersion can even be used to treat phobias.

Research methodology presented in this essay seem not only to push the limits of how research is done to benefit design but also seem to have a greater ethical message similar to human-centered design: the purpose of the research is not to push a particular idea, but to be open to many ideas so understanding means of responsible communication occur. The case studies in this essay are concrete examples that even if a certain kind of technology seems to emphasize nothing but aesthetic “wow” value, individuals have an opportunity to take what exists and use outside resources to enhance its function and its message as well. In such a saturated world for new media filled with an emphasis on entertainment this becomes a sign of hope and opportunity for not just designers, but others interested in design issues from other backgrounds. For the most effective interdisciplinary research, a group consisting of different academic backgrounds adds depth and efficiency to the research and enables more ideas and approaches as well. As information permeates from one field to another the ability for the designer to pool from more backgrounds will become more accessible because categorizations are not fixed over time, making it easier for designers to find appropriate information. The more frequently categories develop, the more resources will exist in both industry and academia and hopefully will contribute to a better use of the technology at hand.

Response to:

“Design and Reflexivity” by Jan Van Toorn. Appears in the book Graphic Design Theory: Readings From the Field edited by Helen Armstrong, published by Princeton Architectural Press.

The political in design is often looked at in a context of making a political statement but neglects the political process linked to design itself. The circumstances and intentions that lie behind the designer are assumed to be ‘transparent,’ but in a market economy the profit will always be the underlying factor. In this sense Van Toorn argues that in order for design to function it accepts the established order as the basis of its actions. Social order legitimizes design and in turn it becomes necessary for design to legitimize the social order as well, creating a system that denies a critical look into the system itself (102). Acknowledge this ‘realization,’ ‘reality’ becomes a concept that is separated from design – it becomes difficult for design to become much more that representations of the representations of the current system.

This concept is engaging and provokes a lot of thought centered around the ‘nature’ of design: Why do we design? Who are we really designing for? In our economic system, is it possible to actually design solely for humans? These questions are not easily answered and create a lot of room for debate: Something I think Van Toorn would certainly advocate. Throughout Van Toorn’s essay he doesn’t spend his time pinpointing how to go about design, but rather how to attempt to tear through the surface conceptions depicted in a highly ‘stabilized’ society. Design becomes a very complex system that is dependent on much more than the designer and the designer’s intent (if one values intent). When the notion of design being linked to political and economical systems in acknowledged, it seems to create a new problem: How can design change if it is tied so closely to a system?

For Van Toorn this is where opportunity comes in: he announces it is “time to apply our imaginative power once again to how we deal with communicative reality” (103). The references to theorists in the article points out his influences a great deal and explain his perception of design: much of the works he draws from are post-structural with focal points on class and reality, especially the distance between classes and realities. Society is some that is highly synthetic, virtually detached from a notion of reality and experience is guided by a ruling class. Given these viewpoints Van Toorn’s rigid enthusiasm about the power of design becomes especially relevant. Designers often take messages from a ‘ruling class’ and have an opportunity to communicate, all too often forgetting themselves and the audience.

Van Toorn’s argument is quite compelling but a few concerns arise in the areas regarding the audience and the notion or ‘originality.’ How can something that is unfamiliar be certain that it is communicating with the intended audience? Audience and their role as consumers isn’t really present in this essay, and is a critical component in most theory. Cultural theorist Michel de Certeau focuses most of his studies on ‘consumers’ and sees them in an empowering way that historically has not been present. Considering a lack of discussion regarding this area, it seems reasonable to claim that either Van Toorn 1) views the role of the audience within the mission of digging behind the surface of design or 2) views the audience as secondary to the content conveyed because he feels that the content ought to speak for itself. Either way, relating these ideas to the role of the non-ruling class he seems to value highly would create more clarity with his intent.

The second issue, originality, complicates itself because the word has become void of much merit in contemporary society. Van Toorn uses the cliche “off the beaten path” to describe and approach to a more critical design, but what happens if this becomes an adopted standard? Originality cannot be replicated and with the number of designed objects created an extreme amount of overlap would have to be present. Dot Dot Dot is a publication that is highly aware of this notion as much of its content is recontextualized from other publications to create issues with have meanings created through the linkages between articles. Content is not generated in an ‘original’ manner, but does the assemblage of content in a new way constitute as something original, or just replicating what the content is saying? Visual collage in design, for example, is a way of taking information and creating new ways of saying things (frequently deeper than what the original concept is) but it has become so overdone it has more or less become a stylized approach to making content attractive, masking the content itself. These issues become even more complex because they go back to authorial intent: if the designer aims to communicate something in a fragmented culture that doesn’t read things universally, how can originality even be conceived?