----------empyre- soft-skinned space---------------------- I’d like to respond to the general sense of ‘what is to be done’ that is emerging here with regard to the role ‘design’ plays as both a discursive category and as a practice. I’m especially moved by what Adam has suggested, that design needs to become unrecognizable to itself. I think this is a fantastic way to think about it. And one way to estrange a practice from itself is to shift the object of design itself, which, as Adrian offers, should be the very relations of production/reproduction. I find this provocatively relevant and challenging (especially as someone who teaches design).
However, for me, I suppose the question is not so much how do you subvert the program of neoliberalism, precisely because there is no single program through which neoliberalism operates. I applaud many of the efforts by the relatively few designers, activists, artists and so on able to translate the complexities of contemporary labor relations, consumption, etc., to create interventions in city spaces which bring to light certain injustices, asymmetries or otherwise to light—objects, equipment, instruments and the like making visible a public discourse that would otherwise be drowned out the distractions of the standard atmospheric urban spaces of contemporary capitalist culture. But I also am often struck by their limitations. In many cases these interventions treat space as a kind of neutral container whose contents are dominated by neoliberal interests, and thus it is simply a matter of occupying a part of that space in order to counter this tendency. I think there needs to be much more work put in to looking at what we could call the spatio-political orders that constitute the world under neoliberal (or more broadly, liberal) forms of power. What my own research looks at is to try to see how urban space may be precisely such a spatial order, whose configuration, materiality, organization and so on—all relatively new to the world—is not a representation of contemporary political form, but is itself contemporary political form: both spatial order and political form, means and ends. In this way, it suddenly poses the question of design as a radical practice in new light: it is no longer a matter of only making visible a certain discourse of politics through its presentation in space, but actually of constructing new configurations of space altogether. In other words, the urban is not, for me, the site of conflict, inequality, exploitation as well as the source of creative intervention, collectivity, etc.; rather, the urban itself that is the problem we address when we talk about the antinomies of contemporary politics (neoliberal or otherwise). And if we understand 'the urban’ as a spatio-political order predicated on its limitless expansion (urbanization), then we can imagine how today this is a category that immediately evades any ontology of city/country, interior/exterior, etc. and indeed could be said to condition the entire space of the world today, perhaps more than any other spatio-political category today. Design, for me, is the rigorous activity of imagining and constituting a space (and thus a politics) which goes beyond the oppressive biopolitics and territorial technologies that the urban imposes on life today. How can we imagine a spatial organization truly beyond the urban? Ross Exo Adams, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Architecture College of Design Iowa State University 595 Design 158 College of Design Ames, IA 50011 On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 9:00 PM, <empyre-requ...@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au> wrote: > Send empyre mailing list submissions to > empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/empyre > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > empyre-requ...@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au > > You can reach the person managing the list at > empyre-ow...@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of empyre digest..." > > > ----------empyre- soft-skinned space---------------------- > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: empyre Digest, Vol 118, Issue 1 (John Hopkins) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:04:45 -0700 > From: John Hopkins <jhopk...@neoscenes.net> > To: empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au > Subject: Re: [-empyre-] empyre Digest, Vol 118, Issue 1 > Message-ID: <5410cafd.8020...@neoscenes.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > >> But is not lost. I am intrigued and inspired by design practices that attempt >> to subvert the logic of neoliberalism. Design in the public interest, >> structures for inclusion, practices of commoning, and so forth are all >> exciting experiments with a more expanded understanding of the social basis >> of design as a constitutive power (to borrow from Hardt and Negri). > > Problem is, 99.999% of 'design practices' (as a > cultural-social-academic-economic 'manifestation') are enclosed by a complete > dependence on the wider hydrocarbon energy system -- precisely because those > practices grew out of and exist because of the excess that contemporary > (technological) energy sources have (temporarily and unsustainably!) > produced... > > And, actually, we *will* eventually consume our way out of the environmental > 'problem' -- when the energy source is all consumed, then there will be a > massive re-set of the system. When the sustainable pre/post hydrocarbon > population settles down to somewhere between, say, 0.5 and 1.0 billion of the > human species, the environment will slowly re-evolve into something entirely > different. (This scenario seems to be the most likely, as there is *no* > slowing > of consumption apparent on the wide scale...!) In some ways, it is a standard > that it an anathema to Life (as a phenomena) to *not* consume when there is an > available energy source. Humans try to think themselves out of this need for > Life to consume energy to project itself into the future. But it would appear > that the conscious thoughts aren't enough to change the actions that are a > core > part of evolved life. > > So, bravo for thinking about the practices, but for the practices to be > actualized we should suspend remote conversations that are mediated by a > massive > global telecommunications infrastructure that is fully dependent on > hydrocarbons. (We are the neo-liberals here communicating via this > technology). > Didn't Graham Harwood, or someone else of that ilk make a calculation as to > how > much energy is expended in sending an email? > > A few cents of afternoon meditation after having to walk home with a flat tire > on my bike through sonic clouds of screeching cicadas. They will be around > longer than we shall, neoloberalism or not! > > Cheers, > JH > -- > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Dr. John Hopkins, BSc, MFA, PhD > grounded on a granite batholith > twitter: @neoscenes > http://tech-no-mad.net/blog/ > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > empyre mailing list > empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au > http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/ > > > End of empyre Digest, Vol 118, Issue 4 > ************************************** _______________________________________________ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
