Comments on: Objectified http://www.whatknows.com/blog/2009/12/01/objectified/ jed brubaker's blog Tue, 20 Sep 2011 07:01:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: lilly http://www.whatknows.com/blog/2009/12/01/objectified/comment-page-1/#comment-12302 lilly Sat, 28 Aug 2010 23:41:25 +0000 http://www.whatknows.com/blog/?p=739#comment-12302 perhaps rashid wants to enchant everything, and he's entitled to try. I just read a book called The Problem of Presence and one of the things it was pointing to is that not everything is a sign. The fact that certain things are semiotically significant and others are not -- some media, in the book's case, are channels of god and others are not -- is itself a cultural phenomenon. Semiotic ideology is the term engelke employed. Seems related to the semiotic ideologies that govern everyday life and the contacts between designers and their consumers/publics, what have you. perhaps rashid wants to enchant everything, and he’s entitled to try. I just read a book called The Problem of Presence and one of the things it was pointing to is that not everything is a sign. The fact that certain things are semiotically significant and others are not — some media, in the book’s case, are channels of god and others are not — is itself a cultural phenomenon. Semiotic ideology is the term engelke employed. Seems related to the semiotic ideologies that govern everyday life and the contacts between designers and their consumers/publics, what have you.

]]> By: Jed http://www.whatknows.com/blog/2009/12/01/objectified/comment-page-1/#comment-12301 Jed Sat, 28 Aug 2010 23:20:33 +0000 http://www.whatknows.com/blog/?p=739#comment-12301 I think these are fair an interesting points. When I heard Karim talk (and granted this was a bit ago now), it almost seemed as if he was trying to materialize the kind of wonder - visually and socially - that we all approached the internet with. For me, the interesting questions here are about ideology and materiality. I don't think the issue is whether Karim is correct or not (although his notion of domestic spaces as perverse is amusing), but rather what are the various factors that reify current ideas and prevent us (perhaps appropriately) from enacting "the age we live in" -- whatever that is. I think these are fair an interesting points. When I heard Karim talk (and granted this was a bit ago now), it almost seemed as if he was trying to materialize the kind of wonder – visually and socially – that we all approached the internet with. For me, the interesting questions here are about ideology and materiality. I don’t think the issue is whether Karim is correct or not (although his notion of domestic spaces as perverse is amusing), but rather what are the various factors that reify current ideas and prevent us (perhaps appropriately) from enacting “the age we live in” — whatever that is.

]]> By: lilly http://www.whatknows.com/blog/2009/12/01/objectified/comment-page-1/#comment-12299 lilly Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:39:03 +0000 http://www.whatknows.com/blog/?p=739#comment-12299 oh vom!To two ideas, not yours, but quoted here that I also target in my diss proposal. One, that designers are privileged seers and purveyors of *the* future (Antonelli). Isn't this an idea that requires us to become desiring followers of a particularly small, elite set of people who don't know or deal with our daily circumstances? This is a somewhat widely held, not often formally stated, sentiment and I find it interesting to understand how designers became the future when, designers are more commonly the marketing arm of mass production. I love design, but the way we talk about design is highly ideological in how it recuperates consumption. Two, relatedly, the chairs and wooden spindles are not the past. They are present in our bodies, in our habits, in the things that we can go to for consistency. Rashid sounds like a futurist which wants to disrupt all that is known as bad to generate more design opportunities for himself. We all know how well modernist revolutions went in a lot of places. There's a place for marking as new and a place for ongoingly refreshing what is more familiar. Our wooden tables are thoroughly modern anyways, made across the world in factories in even larger scale and lower cost. I love you! :-D Vive the debate! oh vom!To two ideas, not yours, but quoted here that I also target in my diss proposal. One, that designers are privileged seers and purveyors of *the* future (Antonelli). Isn’t this an idea that requires us to become desiring followers of a particularly small, elite set of people who don’t know or deal with our daily circumstances? This is a somewhat widely held, not often formally stated, sentiment and I find it interesting to understand how designers became the future when, designers are more commonly the marketing arm of mass production. I love design, but the way we talk about design is highly ideological in how it recuperates consumption.
Two, relatedly, the chairs and wooden spindles are not the past. They are present in our bodies, in our habits, in the things that we can go to for consistency. Rashid sounds like a futurist which wants to disrupt all that is known as bad to generate more design opportunities for himself. We all know how well modernist revolutions went in a lot of places. There’s a place for marking as new and a place for ongoingly refreshing what is more familiar. Our wooden tables are thoroughly modern anyways, made across the world in factories in even larger scale and lower cost.

I love you! :-D Vive the debate!

]]>