designing, visualizing, and not-knowing

I have already twice had a pass at attempting to negotiate what I think of Lawson’s caution away from ever confusing a diagram (making sense of facts, conditions etc) with a proposition drawing (ideas for the design), yet I figure if I really am considering naming my Parsons practice Speculative Proposition Diagrams then I need to resolve this argument.

In my second go round I used an essentially semantic argument that simply concluded that my ‘proposition’ is that the diagram is a good rhetorical device for temporarily fixing the abstract, complex material I am making sense of. This side-steps Lawson’s issue, which was more about how it is confusing if one begins to blur the somewhat analytical, organizational, objective act of diagramming with the speculative, imaginative and propositional ideation phase. As I have mentioned this caution seems to align with the people who have felt frustrated by the implied fixity of the information design aesthetic with respect to the mutable relationships of the content.

Yet, I am beginning to think that perhaps this is at the core of my practice and central to why these visualizations propose a different kind of practice.

I have already talked to how the visual language maximizes this tension…but I am wondering whether this tension also points to a distinction between emphasizing what the diagram is communicating to others versus what the diagram is disclosing to the designer? Graphic design would conventionally privilege the presented visualizations capacity to effectively communicate, whereas what if in this new paradigm I am proposing the potential of the visualizing process is to facilitate understanding.

I am assuming that with the garden-variety diagram (simple bubble diagrams, mind maps etc) Lawson accepts that the value lies in the process of the designer making sense of what situation they are designing with and into (the fixed conditions, brief, stakeholders, constraints etc). I suggest that this use of the diagram speaks to a reflective, framing phase in designing, one where the designer is attending to the different pieces in play. This correlates with Lawson’s position that the diagram affords a space where the designer can be wrestling with the big picture while still not actually making a specific design move.

Then the proposition drawing Lawson refers to (essentially drawn design possibilities) allows the designer to take this a step further by putting forward ideas to see how successfully they activate or reconcile the agents at play. This proposition drawing is deployed at a speculative, development phase where, although not attending to the full complexity of the brief, the designer floats possible scenarios. Lawson argues that the proposition drawing is the most ‘designerly’ given that this space is really defined by the conversation between the designer and the situation.

Focusing on these two points (and forgetting for a minute his concern that the proposition should communicate the level of refinement) then I think that it is a natural exchange between diagramming the context/brief/situation and putting forward a proposition. And not just in a MVRDV kind of way (where essentially the diagram becomes the proposition). I think that if we focus on the affordances of the diagram and proposition drawing — two drawing practices at the core of designing — it would seem that together they present a potentially discursive space where reflection and speculation could be negotiated in the one visualization.

What I am attempting to unravel here is the importance of focusing on the process each step affords. Lawson talks about how the diagram allows one to focus on parts of the whole, yet he resists speculation at this moment, at the same time acknowledging that designers often speculate to define a brief. My guess is he accepts that diagramming to understand a project can happen simultaneously to proposing an idea to understand a project’s possibilities — but he essentially rejects this happening in the one diagram/drawing simply because of the different formal languages we use to communicate/represent these two activities.

So my claim is that there is value in the proposition diagram if its ambition is primarily about designing to understand. It would seem a particularly valid designerly conversation with the situation — to swing between looking close to read the context (reflective diagram) and casting wide to imagine the potential (speculative proposition).

My practice then intentionally adopts the visual incongruity of working with an assertive, reductive diagrammatic language while tentatively considering possible scenarios. My claim is that this increases critical reflection in two ways:

1) In challenging early unresolved speculations to be presented in a confident visual language we associate with communicating objective considerations you encourage a rigorous interrogation of the ideas in relation to the situation. Effectively, the level of formal refinement required asks you to constantly negotiate whether the propositions are ready for formal presentation.

2) The subverted diagrammatic visual language seeks to present ambiguous, mutable interpretations of the propositions, yet in turn challenges the designer to acknowledge that the situation itself also cannot be understood from any fixed perspective. Effectively, the mutability (slippage) embodied in the corrupted visual language calls for a critical understanding of the contingencies of the situation.

To conclude. I would argue that the productivity of the proposition diagram comes from the very awkwardness, the incongruity, of representing not-yet-fixed ideas in a diagrammatic language we associate with fixing. Exploring propositions in a diagram asks that they be seriously interrogated and in turn by subtly messing with the visual language of the diagram (muted palettes or arrows that go nowhere) ensures that even the fixed is still up for further questioning. In amplifying the backtalk between the proposition and the diagram, between the figure and the ground, the discursive productivity of the proposition diagram speaks.

Following on from the previous post about being specific in my accounting for the visual language I have adopted…I thought I would extend the reflection on the visual language to the material conversation with the visualization.

It is interesting to consider the visual language in relation to the material and reflective conversation between myself (designer) and the visualization (artifact) as the designs are being created. There is the initial conceptualizing for a visualization, which might involve quick sketches, but is primarily an act in speculating about potential frames/concepts and checking how effectively they seem to propose a valid direction. Then there is the reflection-in-action of the potential signification of each material decision. I see this as ultimately a further speculative move since I am really reflecting on what this color or shape might communicate, in turn presenting a new possible interpretation that I have to weigh up against my initial understanding.

It seems that it is in this intermediate phase that a large part of the negotiation is driven by the conversation between the incisive currency of the abridged written texts and the open-ended potential of the diagram. When working on these essays and diagrams I don’t design to already scripted captions or write the title’s only after designing. I definitely think of the marks in conjunction with thinking of the words. I see that the interplay between the explicit and the ineffable is central to my interrogation and understanding of the content being disclosed. The tension between the specificity and efficiency of the short sentences or key words and the expansive, somewhat exhaustive layers to the graphic marks establishes a reflective rigor within the visualizations that seems not dissimilar to the external gaze of sharing the visualizations for critique. Pulling out even further this tension being negotiated operates at a meta level with the stop-and-reflect process of designing and blogging.

In contrast I feel that the more formal material conversation that dictates the general vocabulary of marks and color palettes I adopt has become unwittingly consistent over the years. I think this is equal parts strategic, laziness, and historical. I think I consciously saw the body of work as collection of essays and desired a continuity of language, I also settled on a language that I was familiar with, and revisited the clean, intimate aesthetic I had developed during my art practice. What this does do, probably unintentionally though, is cut out a level of ‘noise’ generated by the reflective conversation. This might be the most constructive part to the decision to rework with a familiar formal language…in accepting the limits to the formal options in front of you one can productively attend to the backtalk of the reflection / speculation chatter.

Following my commitment to being decisive and specific I am going to describe the visual language I have been adopting.

Recent posts have briefly described the formal language as:

• Visual Language: Representational visual language of mapping and information design
• Image: Primacy of vector mark-making
• Text: Secondary to image, but includes titles and annotated headings or captions

…but I recognize that there is more behind the adopted aesthetic than a simple description of the form. I wanted to more specifically interrogate the visual language that runs across both the visual essays and proposition diagrams and reflect upon what it sets out to achieve.

A visual language at odds with the content
Earlier posts generally spoke to a history within my practice of adopting unconventional visual languages for projects…and it would seem that the faux-information design (as I have referred to it) aesthetic adopted here is no exception. The expertise of information design, as it relates to graphic design, is to transform data / facts / systems into clear, accessible information. Conventionally the clean graphic language asserts that the information objectively derives from the content and assumes that there is one valid interpretation of the information (if not a hundred wrong ways to represent it). In graphic design this somewhat modernist, or at the least a belief in a universal language, is taken further by E. Tufte’s assertion that the information design should be devoid of any extraneous mark-making or chart junk as he calls it.

Although I keep saying I have adopted this aesthetic, the reason I refer to mine as faux-information design is not simply because I am not dealing with data or ‘information.’ Information design is defined in part by an over-riding intent to unambiguously impart the information by graphically highlighting the most pronounced key themes/messages within the text. Given that my work embraces the complexity and plurality of potential readings the content presents, my practice defies the underlying intent — to give clarity and be usable — behind the communication of conventional information design.

Visual communication and audience engagement
I believe the associated authority of the information design vector language described above, in contrast to the accepted and expected poetic associated with gestural mark-making, sets up a different first read of the work. The initial impression that this is ’serious’ communication. The intent was to draw the audience in to believing they can unpack the coded language, only to recognize upon engaging with the work that there is not one correct reading of the visualization. This clearly plays into believing that there is an accepted visual literacy of the design audience (predominantly communication design audience for the essays), who recognize the rhetorical game being enacted.

I keep mentioning that my work embraces a kind of purposeful ambiguity, and yet perhaps it would be better described as the intentional incongruity of (mis)matching a formal objective language with mutable subjective content. I think the ambiguity lies not so much in the intentionality of the message being communicated, but in the democratic openness that the message can and will be interpreted differently when read through the lens of a different set of experiences. Therefore the work resists the temptation to account for ‘an experience’ and instead metaphorically and somewhat abstractly invites alternative readings. Within an artworld context this would be completely recognized as normal and even within a theoretically-informed communication design discourse this would be self-evident…but within corporate communication design and specifically information design multiple readings are far from acknowledged, let alone encouraged.

If there is a clear communication objective within the work it is that the mutable, imperfect and intangible quality of the relationships I am reflecting upon and visualizing is not ironed out and simply packaged into easily digestible bullet points (or cute pictograms!) The visual language does still seek to present key themes, but not with the intention of being conclusive, but instead to draw the designer and audience into further reflection, discussion and speculation.

The text + image relationship
I previously identified that “the maps might be quick and dirty sketches or fully refined essays with layered photographic images, but all are annotated with titles, captions, headings or preambles.” Acknowledging each visualizations’ direct engagement with text becomes significant for how the work is distinguished from a photographic essay or an illustrative or visual art image.

In doing the grounded theory exercise I recognized the extent that my work was annotated like a graphic designer. Even though as a practicing artist my work was concerned with words and incomplete sentences, this use is different because the text on the essays and diagrams is more consistent with the text and image relationship of straight-up graphic design. Only occasionally has the text sought to be more poetic and perform in a similar way to the visualizations, more often the words play a traditional role of caption, title, legend or sub-heading.

I mention this because I think it is important to acknowledge how integral the written word is to the diagrams. Regularly those engaging with the text have acknowledged that they rely on the written word as a signpost for deciphering the graphic and similarly within the design process I have found considering titles and captions an equally productive way to reflect on the content as visualizing. To this point, wrong titles on the Parsons diagrams can negatively skew the message or alternatively the more poetic diagrams can be simply recycled if the underlying message is reframed and focused by a new title/context. It would seem that the inclusion of text within the visual essays and diagrams is often more instructive and descriptive than poetic and ambiguous…in turn granting the graphic language of the diagrams license to be more obtuse.

More in the next post about how this text/image dynamic directs the material conversation…

There is a long history of designer’s themselves using process diagrams to make sense of their own process, communicate design best practices or theorize to colleagues and other designers, and/or attempt to explain to clients what is going on.

I thought I would note a few examples here and reference how I see these in relation to my own work.

Charles Eames, Eames Design Process, 1969

This diagram done by Charles Eames for an exhibition titled “What is Design?” at the Louvre in 1969, is perhaps one of the most recognized design process diagrams. Although the diagram sought to document the Eames’ process, the framing of the process (in relation to the designer and clients’ interests and society’s concerns), suggests that from the outset the diagram was conceived for public reception/education. Distinct from the Design Methods movement in the UK in the mid-1960’s this diagram places emphasis not on the steps, phases of design, but on the responsibility one has to identify and negotiate the overlapping interests between the potentially competing agencies of the office, client and society. There is a similarity to Design Methods presented in the commitment to declare a practice that presents a different way of thinking of designing in relation to societal concerns and an acknowledgment of the not static conditions that one is designing in.

When I first came across this diagram a decade or so ago, I was excited by the parallels with my Masters research. At that point I focused on the models assertion that the office’s interests were a relevant part of the equation. Now I look at it and appreciate that although essentially a diagram about one’s own situated experience, it clearly sought to communicate/advocate for a new model of designing for others. And I imagine that it’s continued relevance as a diagram lies in the absence of any pretense to pin down and fix the methods or process of designing and instead to highlight the dynamic relationships that need to be mediated.

IBM, Four Phases of Design Diagram

One obviously missing relationship from the 1969 Eames diagram is the user or audience for the work. Reviewing contemporary design process models it would appear the faction of designer’s most interested in defining the phases and steps of design are the design faction committed to user-centered design. The above diagram designed for the IBM developerWorks series highlights four distinct phases of design: analysis / design / prototype / development. The authoritative nature of this diagram lies not just in the formal and written language, but also in the corporate and rationalist desire to articulate the design process as something that can be described and accounted for.

It isn’t so much that I dismiss the value of this kind of diagram — as I think it probably meets its corporate communication goals quite well — but I do see it as almost antithetical to my ambitions. Similar to the type of language and clarity sought in engineering design diagrams this kind of communication seeks to demystify the design process in a way that assures business people of the clear steps and collaborators of the rules of engagement. Valuable as this is, I am seeking to demystify the design process with a totally different approach by drilling into the complexity and breadth of moves within a designer’s process…in turn recognizing that the process itself cannot be compartmentalized or understood in this methodical way.

Central Office of Design, Design Squiggle

In fact my appreciation for the design process is more similar to the chaos of the process ’squiggle’ above designed by Damien Newman at Central Office of Design. I appreciate that the diagram embraces (and communicates) the uncertainty at the beginning of the process. I also relate to their narrative, from my own experience, how valuable it can be to use such diagrams for communicating the process to clients in a way very different to the corporate model above. Still, beyond how the designer’s are using it (which I actually think is great) the image doesn’t go much further than the one’s I was doing at the beginning of this research. Although I might relate to this more than the overly staged corporate model, the diagram still presents a pretty simple, romantic notion of design. The gestural mark asserts the ‘creativity’ of the act and the simple, straight line confidently asserts a clear solution. When I find Lawson and Cross writings about how designer’s put forward possible propositions from the outset, more insightful, revealing and plausible.

Kyle McGuire, KYMC, Creative Process Diagram

Seems funny that perhaps the process map that I could find that most aligned with my interests is this little known one done by Kyle McGuire. Although more pictorial and whimsical than mine it does attempt to abstract an experience beyond his own and at least acknowledges the blurred entry into different phases, dead ends, iterative roundabouts and moments of discovery. I used to regularly get my students to develop up process maps as they reflected upon their own reflections…but it was always a quick sketch and conversation. I value this work for all its imperfections and obvious reflection that went into actually refining the final poster.

To conclude, with my visualizations I seek to navigate some place between the thoughtful study that goes into attending to the content for a process like the IBM diagram, while establishing the relevance that comes from practitioners’ recognizing the process sketched in the Central squiggle, with the honesty and depth of reflection embodied in the KYMC diagram. Yet, ultimately it is the significance of the contribution behind the Eames diagram (if not the napkin aesthetic) that most resonates. I respect the ambition to use the humble diagram to propose and communicate a new way of understanding not just their own practice but the potential agency of design.

Thought I would make a first pass at situating the visualizations in relation to other practices. I pretty much started with the work that has the most shared sensibilities, moving toward the work that seems a more distinctly different practice.

Simon Patterson, The Great Bear

Mark Lombardi, Bill Clinton, the Lippo Group, and Jackson Stephens of Little Rock,

Information-design aesthetic adopted to capture elusive relationships
Given the emphasis on seeking to ‘capture’ not quantifiable relationships, my visualizations have connections with these artists’ work. The artists similarly appropriate an information design-like language using vector marks with text annotations/content. More so than my diagrams these pieces the austerity of the work, with no extraneous marks, stays true to E. Tufte’s chart junk rebuke. The artworld context the work is received in acknowledges the ‘fallacy of intentionality’ when it comes to audience readings and critics interpretations. And although the political, social or cultural relationships the work highlights are different to mine I see the work as a similarly reflective, thoughtful exercise for the artist who seeks to understand for themselves complex material. It almost seems a by-product of this self-reflection and interrogation that creates evocative artworks that encourage audience speculation. This parallels the kind of engagement I would hope for in my work, even if my work distances itself from the ‘clarity of communication’ aesthetic and more intentionally seeks to be ambiguous.

Matthew Ritchie, Proposition Player, 2003

Julie Mehretu, Ruffian Logistics, 2001

Rendering the complexity of the world
Artists whose work seeks to describe the integrated forces and complex nature of our constructed world. A world where historical, experienced, metaphoric and mythical relationships collide — where we can only understand the parts by visualizing the whole. Although infinitely more ambitious and located in particular histories, the oeuvre of these artists has parallels to how I understand the multiple perspectives and revisited themes wrapped up in a collection of visual essays (even if narrowly about designing as opposed to the history of the universe!) The visual aesthetic has less parallels, (given the more gestural mark-making and absence of text), yet the attention to mutable, dynamic relationships, like my work, seems central and part of what the artist is seeking to negotiate and understand for themselves.

Matthew Ericson, for The New York Times

Tommy McCall, for The New York Times (detail

Conventional Information Design
The graphic design professionals that create information design use visual thinking to disclose a new way of seeing the material, not that dissimilar to the ambitions of my practice and the data-visualization researchers (below). The content they are dealing with also often involves complex, layered content that needs to be unpacked, so there is an intent to thoroughly examine the material and consider how to represent it. The difference is that the graphic seeks to present objective information or ‘evidence’, what E. Tufte would call ‘truthful’ communication. Even accepting that the content I am working with can’t be quantified, my practice does not simply accept the ‘honesty’ or pursuit of representing data objectively.

OPTE Project, 3D VRML Maps of the Internet

HTML DOM Visualizer Applet

Images that deploy visualizations as a tool for discovery and understanding
There is a related vector aesthetic in a lot of research visualizations that have a shared ambition with my work — visualizing for discovery and new understanding. Although, however poetic these visualizations appear, they are distinctly different from mine since they are generated from hard data. I appreciate how ‘designed’ some of these data-driven visualizations are though and recognize that it is the attention to formal decisions that has contributed to how published and recognized some of these diagrams have become. It is more like I adopted this language for content that in contrast is not measurable, but instead intangible and oftentimes ineffable.

Dan Roam, Back of a Napkin, Publication 2008

Jessica Hagy, indexed.blogspot.com, July 29, 2008

Visual thinking and the quick sketch
The Roam book and Hagy blog recognize the agency of visual communication, specifically the power of diagrams and sketches to communicate ideas or show relationships. Roam is a proponent of drawing the sketches in meetings and Hagy’s diagrams chart invisible relationships. The drawn images also have parallels to my vector lines, except they are hand-drawn and sometimes pictograms. The main difference is that even when the sketch is a diagram the difference is that the emphasis is on simplicity of message, on how quick and clear the communication is. In contrast my critical practice work often messes with how quickly one can ‘read’ the diagram by layering refined details and ambiguous marks that seek not to simplify but to highlight the complexity of the material.

There is a history of diagrams that designer’s have created that specifically seek to communicate something about the design process…I listed those in a separate post.