alienation

In one of the past posts I did an image search on flickr using the word “intimacy”. Several of the images I found depicted private scenes of isolated individuals, separated and ignored by their surroundings. I imagine that for the the poster of these images, the sense of intimacy came in the thought of capturing a private moment, the individual unaware that they are being watched. However in each of these cases the stronger concept for me was one of alienation.

The concept of alienation as a response to a discussion of intimacy is not such a stretch as they could pretty accurately be described as antonyms. While intimacy is described as have a close connection or knowledge, alienation is of being separated and isolated.

This posting is not going to be an indepth analysis of any specific part of alientation but a catalogue of some interesting concepts that could be followed up regarding alienation:

Marx & alienation -

Alienation is systemic of capitalism

Fetishism of commodities further alientates the populace.

The concept of God alienates the characteristics of the human being

Industrialisation results in workers losing control of lives, losing autonomy, alienated from their own lives.

alienation within the act of production - losing the spirit and care of production for the making of a product

Alienation Effect

also referred to as distancing effect

Bertolt Brecht - the continued introduction of the audience into a play, to never allow them to become lost in the characters, to remain as ethical observers. The goal was to create empathy and intimacy with global ethical issues, rather than develop intimacy with particular characters which may cloud moral clarity.

The creation of intimacy can be created through alienation. Through introducing something to us in a new way we are forced to look closely and explore features that we may have previously missed.

There seems to be a pattern that can be created - Intimacy may involve getting to know oneself, seeing that which we have previously not seen, which is through the actions of alienation of our own identity. Is it purely a one way pattern, or is there a cyclical return for intimacy to lead to further alienation?

The role of theory

In “The Artistic Enfranchisement of Real Objects: The Artworld”, Arthur Danto outlines a new theory for the definition of what constitutes a work of art. I am still in the process of analysing and comprehending much of what he has written but there are some interesting quotes relating to the role of theory in creative work, and how theory affects the observer.

The basic argument of the quotes, that will follow, is that theory is what gives meaning to our expressions.

In this first quote Danto is discussing how one might interpret two exact duplicate rectangles printed within his essay. Each rectangle is oriented vertically, with a horizontal line approximately 1/3 from the bottom running from one side to the other. Danto discusses particular interpretations that could be made from the images, including objects of mass pressing downward, and the extension of a line in a space, then discusses the ramifications of the two interpretations. Danto then introduces an observer who has been witnessing all of this. “(the observer)..protests that all he sees is paint: a white painted oblong with a black line painted across it. And how right he really is: that is all he sees or that anybody can, we aesthetes included. So if he asks us to show him what there is further to see, to demonstrate through pointing that this is an artwork, we cannot comply, for he has overlooked nothing.” “We cannot help him until he has mastered the is of artistic identification and so constitutes it a work of art. If he cannot achieve this, he will never look upon artworks: he will be like a child who sees sticks as sticks.”

His argument is a provocative one and I may not be correctly paraphrasing, but for us to merely create something is not enough for it to actually be something. It must be able to transmit a representation or concept that the observer can identify. In this particular quote the greater onus and consequently, power is with the observer. The observer is responsible for making themselves capable of seeing beyond what is patently evident. In the same instance, the observer and their consciousness contains the ability to control the constitution of a work of art.

Further into his essay Danto discussing the work of Andy Warhol and the Brillo cartons. As a means of argument he compares the work of an artist who might take a ready made such as a Brillo carton and pile them high within a room, to a stockboy who lines the same cartons on to shelves, high above his head. Physically they could comprise the same space and volume and be made from the same components, yet one we would consider to be a work of art, and the other not.

“What in the end makes the difference between a Brillo box and a work of art consisting of a Brillo box is a certain theory of art. It is the theory that takes it up into the world of art, and keeps it from collapsing into the real object which it is.”

“Without the theory, one is unlikely to see it as art.”

So the argument here is clearly that Theory is fundamental for the creation of art. Without theory, we are left with just objects or materials.

I see a similar relevance to the work that we do as designers. While there is are some real distinctions between the origination and responsibilities of works of art and products or interface designs, there is still the sense that there is something that distinguishes the non-designed objects from the designed (not to be confused with poorly designed vs. well designed.)

To extend Danto’s argument to our field, a design is based on theory, which is the force of it’s creation as an entity. Without theory it remains merely an object.

The ramifications of this argument may be problematic to some - if we are faced with two identical objects, one which was merely produced without a theory as to it’s constitution as either a piece of art, or as a designed object, then one is designed (or art in Danto’s argument) and one is not.

No doubt more consideration will take place as I continue to read and interpret this work.

Mirror Stage

In reviewing the entry for intimacy on Wikipedia several items struck my interest that started to connect with other recently read theories.

The passage was

“Intimacy is both the ability and the choice to be close, loving, and vulnerable. Intimacy requires identity development. You have to know yourself and your inner self in order to share your self with another. Knowing yourself makes it possible to stand for yourself in an intimate relationship without taking over the other or losing yourself to the other. This ability to be separate and together in an intimate relationship and being okay with that is called self-differentiation. Lacking the ability to differentiate one self from the other is a form of symbiosis. This too is different from intimacy though to some that kind of dependent closeness may feel the same.”

There are quite a few interesting comments in this paragraph that could be evaluated with regard to our intimacy with product or digital interfaces, however I want to focus particularly on a specific section - “Intimacy requires identity development. You have to know yourself and your inner self in order to share your self with another.”

This line stuck in my head as it resonated with another recently read passage. In the intro to Arthur Danto’s essay “The Artistic Enfranchisement of Real Objects: The Artworld”, Danto relays two quotes regarding the purpose of art; the first by Socrates, and the second from Hamlet.

“Socrates saw mirrors as but reflecting what we can already see; so art, insofar as mirror-like, yields idle accurate duplications of the appearances of things, and is of no cognitive benefit whatever."

“Hamlet, more actutely, recognized a remarkable feature of reflecting surfaces, namely that they show us what we could not otherwise perceive - our own face and form, and so art, insofar as it is mirror-like, reveals us to ourselves.”

There is an embryo of a thought here that I have not fully worked out, but in the two quotes, it appears that art, the mirror, reveals us to ourselves; a necessity for the creation of intimacy. Intimacy is not so much an indepth understanding or knowledge of someone or something else, but of our own self. Design is the tool through which we get to know ourselves better.

Interestingly, the concept of mirroring and knowledge of oneself is not a new one.

Psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan coined the term the “Mirror Stage“.

via wikipedia: (I have yet to read source material and try to wrap my brain around the concept)

The mirror stage describes the formation of the Ego via the process of objectification, the Ego being the result of feeling dissention between one's perceived visual appearance and one's perceived emotional reality. This identification is what Lacan called alienation. At six months the baby still lacks coordination, however, he can recognize himself in the mirror before attaining control over his bodily movements. He sees his image as a whole, and the synthesis of this image produces a sense of contrast with the uncoordination of the body, which is perceived as a fragmented body. This contrast is first felt by the infant as a rivalry with his own image, because the wholeness of the image threatens him with fragmentation, and thus the mirror stage gives rise to an aggressive tension between the subject and the image. To resolve this aggressive tension, the subject identifies with the image: this primary identification with the counterpart is what forms the Ego.[4] The moment of identification is to Lacan a moment of jubilation since it leads to an imaginary sense of mastery, yet the jubilation may also be accompanied by a depressive reaction, when the infant compares his own precarious sense of mastery with the omnipotence of the mother.[9] This identification also involves the ideal ego which functions as a promise of future wholeness sustaining the Ego in anticipation.

It is interesting how the concept of alienation once again appears within the discussion of intimacy, in this case the alienation and the intimacy being about one’s own self.

This is all very fragmented and will require some research and consideration, but there are some curious and intriguing patterns developing in this overlapping of statements.

What does intimacy look like?

We live in a visual culture, and the words that we use automatically bring about images in our heads. Using a photosharing database such as flickr we can start to assemble a general consensus of what intimacy looks like.

That is not to argue that it is the correct definition, or the one that we want to work with, but we can map the collective understanding and hopefully search for any particularly startling or intriguing themes.

The process is simple, the images below represent the images that are found using the "most relevant" search, uploaded to flickr tagged with the word “intimacy.“

These pictures were not selected, but were what randomly appeared from the search.  There are some surprising results.  There are the predictable shots with sexual themes, but the repeated appearance of flowers is unexpected.  

There are several images which I debate whether they accurately depict intimacy or not - these are the scenes of the individuals lost in a world going on around them, without acknowledgement of their existence.  I imagine that the argument is that it is intimate as it is this view to a unguarded emotional state, however for me these images more accurately depict alienation - the exact opposite of intimacy.  Perhaps there is an intimacy in revealing one's alienation?...  I don't know.

As for the guy in the office - I have no idea.

Product Intimacy

At this point it may seem a bit unclear as to what I’m talking about, so I wanted to take this chance to point out some basic examples of intimacy in objects and the everyday. These are not exhaustive, but are a few items to help generate further discussion of what intimacy can entail.

One of the first examples that I can think of is the much hyped Ipod.

 The product does have some flaws. I hate the smudgy fingerprints on the back of it. I hate the smudgy fingerprints on the front of it. I hate the scratches that the face has received. But all is redeemed by the sensation of directing the control wheel with my finger. The whole experience with getting an ipod is a very intimate procedure. The packaging is pristine and encourages and delicate and thoughtful opening. The elements are revealed with anticipation. I cannot recall any product where opening the box enhanced the experience of the actual object. Perhaps that’s a bit strong to say. I am a package hater, but the experience with the ipod box is phenomenal. Is that intimacy? I believe it is helping to define the simplicity and beauty that one will expect from their interaction with the actual product. There is a coolness of the metal back as it sits in your palm, and your body and mind fully anticipate the interaction after doing it once.

So what are some of the intimacy issues: Size, materiality? Interface, aesthetic design? How much is the apple brand itself part of the experience that creates develops our intimacy with it? If I am an apple lover who eagerly awaits every new release my interaction will be preprogrammed much differently than an apple hater. As a design issue brand identity is a bit harder to discuss with respect to intimacy. While materiality, interface, etc. may be based in reality, the brand identity is a much more invented notion. How can I argue that apple is a more intimate brand than microsoft, when they both are large multi-national corporations focused on generic and predictable products?

So what other product issues could lead to descriptions of intimacy? Perhaps a car interior? A well design car interior contours to your body, surrounds you snugly, but comfortly and in time can begin to feel like an extension of one’s own body.

Interestingly intimacy can exist for objects which we ordinarily show no particular affection. A packaged toothbrush sitting on the shelf in the grocery store holds no particular alliance for most of us. We may have a favourite brand, a preferred colour, but at the end of the day, it’s a utilitarian tool. However through use, it because highly intimate to the point that we develop very rigid rules about what can happen to it for us to still use it. A mass produced generic item is transformed into a personal item that is to be touched by no one else, due to its interaction with out bodies.

So what is Intimacy?

So what do you think of when you hear the word intimacy?

Most likely your mind moves to a sexual connotation - no doubt aided by the pictures I put in the last posting.
this particular meaning has a strong presence in our understanding of the word
while the Oxford English Dictionary defines intimacy as both;
“Illicit sexual intercourse” and “Intimate connexion or union” , it is the second that I would guess most of us are associated with. It is also the second definition which can cause a discomfort, when they’d prefer to use a more clinical or graphic term. The two definitions almost have a conflicting agenda which should be noted for further discussion.

Other definitions for intimacy that we are familiar with are:
1) quality or condition of being intimate; close familiarity
2) closeness of observation, knowledge or the like

In this course we are talking about digital and industrial design, and while there are certainly cases to be made for the first two definitions to be used regarding our relationships to digital and industrial design, the non-fetish approaches would favour these last two. We can discuss having an intimate relationship with our ipod because of our familiarity with its size, texture and functions. I can describe the hours spent in a specific space giving me an intimate understanding of the volume, materials, and acoustic properties.

One of the problems in this definition is the use of the word “intimate” to describe intimacy, so let’s explore that word further in it’s various forms.

Intimate n.
1) a close friend
2) a person with whom one is intimate; a very close friend or associate.

While this particular usage has fallen out of favour, I would not say that it would be surprising to hear that it could be used in this form.


further definitions:
intimate adj.
1) Inmost, most inward, deep-seated; hence, Essential, intrinsic
2) Pertaining to the inmost thoughts or feelings
3) Close in acquaintance or association; characterised by familiarity, very familiar.
4) Pertaining to or dealing with such close personal relations
5) Of knowledge of acquaintance
6) Of a relation between things

Most of these definitions are pretty predictable and straightforward, however one particularly intrigues me. Essential or Intrinsic.
When we speak of intimate details, we typically use the word to mean private, but the idea of essential or intrinsic is a very intriguing idea, especially when it comes to the field of design. The design process is about editing the thoughts and components of a solution down to its simplest form - nothing more than necessary. In that process we are searching for the pure essence of the design idea - compelling that the distillation down to the essence could be the instigator of intimacy. Or perhaps it is the process of intimacy that results in the essence of the design?



Intimate v.
1) To put or bring into, drive or press into, to make known, announce, notify.
2) To make known formally, to notify, state; formerly to proclaim, to declare (war)
3) To mention indirectly
4) To make intimate, familiarize.

All of these definitions, except for the last, have some intriguing ramifications. The first is that there is a conflict in the definition of the first and third. In one use, it is a forceful announcement, and in the third it is an indirect mentioning. How do either of these relate to our initial notion of intimacy as outlined above? In our original definition of there is a sense of emotional closeness, perhaps realised through an indescribable or possibly tender notion, consistent with the third defintion. How many couples announce their sense of intimacy (to be distinguished from expression of love)

The second definition is the most peculiar of all however. A formal notification of war? Etymologically how did this come to be associated with emotions that we associate with closeness? This draws me back to the first contradiction in the first definition and that is the difference between a close emotional connection and illicit sexual intercourse.

There are several interesting connections that could possibly be further researched regarding this peculiarity of the meaning of intimacy.
1) Hate is not the opposite of Love - indiffierence is the opposite of love - Hate and Love both require intense emotions
2) In relationships that physical intimacy is lacking, fighting will become prevalent, as the interaction becomes a form of intimacy.

In the sense of design there are items that we interact with daily that we hardly notice. They are benign, meaningless things. Then there are things that we hate. Everyday we interact with them, and every day we curse their poor design. We are intimate with these objects, but our intimacy is not based on feelings of good will, in fact our intimacy is based entirely out of our desire for their destruction.

How do you define intimacy?

How do you see it applying to design?

Are there any products/websites/experiences that exemplify intimacy?

Intro

Fear of Intimacy?

Do you find it difficult to develop personal relationships? Do friends accuse you of sabotaging relationships? Does the thought of a long term commitment lead to anxiety and claustrophobia?

I am a designer not a therapist so I can’t help you with any of that. 

For that I would suggest professional counselling.
However, if any of it is design theory related,  then tell me your thoughts.

This blog is set up for the Industrial Design 371 course at Victoria University, LIVE Theory - Critical Theory.

So what does any of this have to do with Intimacy?
Our course is a multi stepped investigation of the design process and applied theories. 

At this point all we have been given is a theoretical context.
That context is “Intimacy”

These initial postings will be reflections on the possible interpretations of intimacy with respect to design and any related issues. What I hope to gain from this open forum is some reflections on my thoughts, possible directions to explore, etc.  

Keep in mind this is a design course and the point is how we create and use intimacy in our interactions with products, user interfaces, etc.  

.... And if you’re having relationship problems, or just want to tell a racy secret and see if I can somehow relate it to design theory, well we can do that too.