Positions through iterating

Reflecting on Unit 1, I used the following Venn diagram to organise what I was most interested in.

In Methods of contextualising, I did an experiment investigating the relationship between design and human behaviour, and I think that process was particularly interesting for me.

The experiment itself was very simple: we placed objects and signs everywhere in the school and observed how people’s behaviour changed. Interestingly, when we placed lines and arrows on the stairs, students changed their behaviour to follow the arrows.

This experiment reminded me of the power of design. Design is not just about conveying information through posters and books; it can also influence behaviour. Based on this realisation, I wanted to further explore the relationship between design and human behaviour, experience design or interactive design in Unit 2.

At this point, when I talked to Houman, he advised me to keep the experiment as focused as possible, as it would be difficult to conduct a large-scale experiment due to the constraints of having to conduct 100 iterations and produce a 100-page publication summarising these experiments within a week.

At first, from the perspective of ‘design that encourages people to take action’ and further from the perspective of a publication, I was researching with reference to picture books and flip books, but Owen advised me on the idea of having the participants draw something and, using the work of Suge Shunichi, who researches Cognitive Design at Tama Art University, I decided to try to create a publication that was more focused than the other two. Inspired by the work of Suge Shunichi, I used a simple design of dots and arrows to test how well participants would draw the arrows as I intended.

I asked several of my course mates to participate, but the results did not work as well as I had hoped. In other words, the experiment “failed”.

So, to learn more about the relationship between design and behaviour, I read The design of everyday things. by Norman, D. A. (2013). Theories such as affordance, as described in this book, and Gestalt theory have already revealed about design influencing people’s vision and behaviour, so I thought that there might be a limit to challenging those grand theories in this short one-week project I felt that.

On the other hand, I was more interested in the Catalogue D’Objets Introuvables. by Carelman, J. (1989), which was mentioned in The design of everyday things. This book was a catalyst for me to learn the importance of not seeking perfection and functionality too much, and furthermore, to enjoy design.
Carelman’s (1989) Masochists’ pot has a humorous design in that the handle and spout are in the same part of the pot and when you try to pour hot water, you pour hot water on yourself.

If we follow Norman’s (2013) argument, it may be an object with absolutely no utility and no need for everyday life. However, I did enjoy viewing Calrelman’s (1989) work. This was because even if I ignored the practicality, there were playful designs and witty ideas that amused me.
Next, I changed my perspective on the results I labelled as “failures” in the first week and explored how much I could use the results to design something that entertained me.

In other words, I decided to celebrate the “failures” of my experiments and pursue creativity from them, just as Halberstam (2011) had argued for the creative potential of failure in The queer art of failure.In experimenting with my creativity, I found various unique forms.

I picked up the shapes that I liked and examined how they could be developed further. Further, I arrived at these patterns.

However, I still don’t see what I want to do with these patterns. What do the patterns I create make the viewer feel and question? These patterns are not naturally inspired patterns, like William Morris or Marimekko. If anything, I have only designed a plot, as described in the Conditional Design Workbook (Edo et al., 2013), and these patterns are only a product of that plot.

The patterns are more like the patterns used by Daniel Buren, and the patterns are not loaded with any meaning. It is up to the audience to decide how they read the patterns.

What if, as Daniel argues, changing the pattern I create causes a change in impression or behaviour in the viewer? I have realised that there is room for a bit more research into the meaning and impact of patterns, which I will continue to explore in the next Positions through contextualising.