Seminar 7 May 16th-

Reading on Political Ergonomics- By Langdon Winner.
In this reading he deals with two different topics. Polictics and Design. He describes politics as human afairs, and power. And describes design as lasting things or patterns.
-Talks about poltics within design, and about it not being so important anymore due to political power now being seen all through the department, from arch to design to production etc....
communications system includes and excludes. So hes saying that we have to think about things through politics eyes. Everything has politics entwined in it.

Political Artifect- Designers design works, ie of art. and works are described as things that endure. When creating a product we have to think about whether it helps or frustrates.

Winner talks about two ways of doing this- We can understand our politcal goals

-Or we can look to history. Learn from the past. In three specific ways
-State craft
-Architecture
-Engineering

State Craft
-What politicians/philosophers do, try to craft/effect the state.
-Interested in how society is organised
-Designing society
-The quality of life relates back to the design of the political structure. William Morris is a good example

Architecture /and urban planning
-Built buildings to encourage/inspire increase quality of life in a certain society.

Engineering
-Began as a part of architecture
-Just a form of problem solving
-Only concerned with making something aconomically/cheaply possible.
-Designers need to recognise the political role of what they do.
-Political ergonomics.
-Ergonomics needs to be expanded, needs to expand how bodies and tools fiot togetherwith society and politics aswel.-With design theres a big gap here.


ANSWERS??
-Could combine the three traditions with rational problem solving- State Craft, Architecture and Engineering
-Participatory design. Where you have users involved in the design process
-Need to be more aware or universal design and make sure your designs include everyone. ie disabilities.


Presentations-
The Ecstasy of Communication by Jean Baudrillard
-Lisa's seminar

1. The simulacrum-hyperrealism
2. Networked society
3. Relations between public and private

Simulacrum- ie the matrix. which is about a simulation that seems real.
- ie a marz bar. which we now by because of its label rather than what it actually is
a) it is the reflection of a basic reality
b) it makes and perverts a basic reality
c) it makes the absence of a basic reality
d) it bears no relation to any reality whatever, it is its own pure simulacrum

Interacting through images with no depth.
Era of production vs Era of connections- connecting through image with no depth/different meaning.
We are used to things based on how they look. And now we buy things that will help include us in a network, opt into a network, help it to have a smooth running. This relates back to the 'cold war, hot houses' reading by Beatriz Colomina- If public space was privitzed, domestic space was publised. We all want out private lives to be part of a public netowrk.
All this netowrking. We are the pure body being influenced by different networks.

'The simulacrum is never what hides the truth- it is the truth that hides the fact that there is none. The simulacrum is true.'
-Ecclesiastes
We buy things not because we think they are the best, but because we think others think they are the best, to fit into the network.
We are lost between the space between real and hyperreal

Second Seminar
The great sideshow of the situationist. international.- By Edward Ball 1987
(si) Group of international, political and artistic agitators 'acts of cultural abotage... that might strengthen the growing bohemian sub-culture.'

Guy Debord- De facto leader- Society of the spectacles.
May 1968 the rise against De Gaulle
'Consevative morality' -religion, -patriotism, -respect for authority.
'Liberal morality' -equality, - sexual liberation, -human rights.

How we follow the image of a product rather than what it actually is. A feature from both presentations