designing, visualizing, and not-knowing

Thinking through the earlier post I became aware that I was unclear whether I was claiming that my Proposition Diagrams were mixing diagrammatic content and propositions in the one visualization or simply adopting the visual language of diagrams to explore propositions. Previously I had a third understanding…that my ‘proposition’ was simply to value the rhetorical device of adopting diagrammatic language for negotiating intangible relationships. This third idea is simply lazy thinking, so I do need to revisit this point.

One thing the previous post confirmed was that at least for communication design (as distinct from architecture) that it makes sense that in referencing the proposition I am not referring to the design conceit or research question as much as to the proposal the design is considering or communicating. The proposition is the subject, not the design idea. Therefore thinking of the Parsons School network diagrams for example, the proposition isn’t the decorative exploration of institutional diagrams, but the networked community being put forward.

I think this highlights that there are different propositional takes operating in my Proposition Diagrams: 1) the conceptual or intellectual proposition I am exploring/communicating, 2) the design proposition of how I examine the content, 3) the proposal that frames how I understand the brief/situation, and 4) the propositional language adopted to ensure continued exploration of the proposition. I guess 1 and 2 always exist in any design project (albeit that 1 would usually be defined already, so a straight-up proposition to be communicated) and I have added the layers of complexity by introducing the mutability of 3 and 4.

I have previously acknowledged that in the Proposition Diagrams these yet-to-be fixed propositions are being communicated with an assertive, authoritative diagrammatic language and that the information design aesthetic is subverted because the intangible content is such that it cannot be pinned down. Yet I have not paid enough attention to the extent that the formal rhetoric is also intentionally undermined to disrupt any straightforward reading of the visualization. It is in fact this double play of mutable content presented through a flawed, impure diagrammatic language that asserts their propositional status and embraces design as a realm of possibilities.

From this perspective I think it is constructive to compare  my Parsons practice in relation to research projects like the Negotiating Lights On and Off visual essay. I can still unpack the difference between the conceptual/intellectual proposition and the design proposition, but what becomes clear is that the Parsons institutional context and content would naturally lend itself to a chart or diagram…as opposed to the more incongruous move of deploying a diagrammatic language for the poetic, mutable visual essays propositions that were never even working toward fixing or defining the content. In contrast the Parsons Proposition Diagrams maintained there propositional status for some time, but once critiqued and understood they were ultimately going to become hard propositions presented not for conversation but for commitment.

I need to go back and define what I mean by ‘proposition.’ Lawson is referring to proposition drawings as when a designer proposes a possible design outcome. Perhaps it is because Lawson is speaking about architecture that this word is getting so confusing for me. I wasn’t sure whether a finished building has a proposition at the core of it or whether proposition can only refer to the ‘possible.’

In architecture the proposition drawing obviously never becomes the final artifact (except with paper architecture but…), so no matter what stage it is in the design process it is still just a proposition until it becomes a presentation drawing of the final proposition. Not sure how this translates to communication design practice. There are obviously initial propositions that go nowhere, concepts that become fixed, while refined typographic propositions are considered, propositional stock images replaced by new photos…but at what point do these iterative propositional moves become the accepted final ‘presentation drawing?’

Lawson probably wouldn’t even argue that in architectural drawings can be easily classified into his typology, so I am just going to make sense of this myself.

Cameron was talking about the level of specificity we associate with different professional uses of the word proposition: a designer putting out there a possible proposal for consideration, to a legislature formally proposing a specific amendment to the law. I want to work with two basic levels of propositions — probably somewhere in between these two.

With respect to my Parsons practice I think the Critical Practice Projects (what I have come to call Proposition Diagrams) explicitly present a possible proposition for consideration. In comparison the Communication Design Practice, operates similarly to standard graphic design and is more about simply communicating a proposition. The difference isn’t just that the former is less assertive and more tentative at the point of execution, it is also about the ambition of the diagram. The communication design diagrams had a primary goal of ultimately promoting support and approval for a proposition. The Proposition Diagrams, somewhat unconventionally, set out to better understand the unknown content by exploring and evaluating propositions.

Although this speculative journey began with only myself conversing with the not-yet-known material, the emphasis on promoting discussion and understanding, over, informing and persuading, ensured that the audience were also engaged in negotiating the yet-to-be finalized proposition. In maintaining a propositional language for the diagrams, even when shared with others, I sought to expose, not mask, this speculative exploration. Learning from the experience of designing the visual essays, this rhetorical device invited my colleagues into critiquing and considering further propositions.

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…