[Below is my dissertation proposal for my Ba in Illustration and Visual Media (Hons). It is formatted for the proposal itself, hence the 3 subheadings. I wanted to put it on here for archival reasons and for potential peer review.]
How Open Source culture affects contemporary design practice
Rationale
I aim to address a number of issues regarding Open Source culture. First of all I want to look at the implicit pros and cons of open sourcing designs or objects. I would like to look at a number of case studies throughout the dissertation, open source and not, and compare the development timelines of the two and their respective final outcomes – which was more efficient/profitable/useful/ethical/etc.? These examples would be examined in varying detail as and when I want to look at particular areas, for example; I would like to examine the role of the designer in the case studies. How did the role differ and if so, how did that affect the designer? Did he or she, in either case, operate in different ways, or have to make particular sacrifices? Or did either have any notable gains? Next I would like to look at how a designer would approach the design process. An ‘open source designer’ would have new tools to design with, such as feedback loops, conversation between author and user and so on. This may lead to definitions of an idea of ‘new design’ methods which could then be compared to ‘old design’ methods. How compatible the two methods are, if at all, would then be a reasonable next step.
I would then like to look at developing a conceptual framework to the idea of open source. Exploring ideas of authorship and the inherent reluctancy of a regular person to share his or her prized invention. This would relate to the new role of the designer as I would look at how much agency the designer has in production.
Ultimately I want to examine the fundamental values of open source, and how that correlates with the human condition regarding authorship. Are the two truly compatible, if not, what are the elements which are crippling true growth of the open source culture.
Methodology
Initially I intend to find a selection of case studies, at most four. I want the selection to be varied but each one to contain an element of design or have a distinct designer. This will help me apply ideas of authorship to the case study as I can then examine how one designer’s role compares to another. The case studies will ideally be a mix of large and small scale ventures which would then allow me to look at how each one sits in its given society and culture, depending on its location. We-Think by Charles Leadbeater and The Cult of the Amateur by Andrew Keen will provide me with many examples and also opposing views on the ideas of open source culture. Limited Language: Rewriting Design by Davies and Parrinder will give me many case studies which are more specific to design, also with a critical insight.
I will be looking at theorists such as Barthes, Foucault, Deleuze, Guattari to understand notions of authorship on a base level. I will then look at the work of Walter Benjamin, Ellen Lupton and Koi Vinh to put the theories into the context of design.
There are many current debates regarding open source culture. Two great resources will be Open-Source.Alltop.com and Slashdot.com which both frequently publish articles on up-to-date examples of open source ventures which are in some way making an impact on society. The nature of open source culture will allow my access to read and talk in contributing and active open source circles, but I will have to make sure to maintain a unbiased perspective.
Literature Review
Any object one buys or uses has been built and designed by someone. It is in the designers interest to hold on to the secrets which led to them designing a successful object which others want to use. Open source is the term coined to anything which allows universal access to the objects blueprints via free license and also allows universal redistribution including subsequent improvements made to it by anyone. The concept is not new, but the name came about with the rise of the internet, and it is based on software which was developed with source code available to whomever uses the software – hence open source-code. As the strength and ubiquity of the internet continues to rise day-by-day, it is no wonder that an open source culture has developed. Today, communication via the internet is almost a primary means, so sharing any form of information which is transmittable in bits and bytes is exceptionally easy. The ubiquity of the internet is now overflowing into many aspects of everyday life and many of the online cultures are doing the same.
Design is a field which is very much affected by the development of the internet. Design, as a large, overwhelming practice is about communication so it would be wrong to think that the development of design practice works in conjunction with the development of the internet. Designers are beginning to understand the strength of a good open source model, but not for personal growth, for larger reasons. Charles Leadbeater, some one whom champions open source culture very strongly, talks in great depth of the Wiki model and in particular, Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a very simple framework designed by two people and currently managed by 5, which has led to the largest encyclopaedia available for free use to anyone. The encyclopaedia itself is made up of nothing but millions of articles written, for free, by a vast community which believe they are adding to something good (Leadbeater, 2008). On the contrary however, for that very reason Wikipedia is also riddled with flaws. The articles are not necessarily written by vetted academics whom have credentials to back up their claims, the articles are written and edited by any one which can lead to re-defining the truth (Keen, 2007). The Wiki model relies on the contributions and upkeep of it users, and to limit this would be self-defeating – for the model to work it must be both open and unobtrusive – if something [non-technical] goes wrong, it must be fixed by it’s users amongst themselves. This then raises many interesting arguments about authorship.
As a system needs to be designer, but that designer has to allow his or her system to develop dynamically and organically, he or she needs to be able to step back – to put the designed object into the hands of the user. This idea has strong ties to Barthes and his ideas surrounding the Death of the Author (1967). Barthes speaks of how the writer must abandon any selfish connections to his or her own work and accept that the work is in, and of itself. The writer is a transmitter, but once the writing is in the hands of the reader, the writing is now under perception of the reader and the writing is merely a junction of ‘innumerable centres of culture’. To allow the writer and his or her background to have an influence on the understanding of a given text is to limit it. If a text exists in and of itself, purely in the hands of the reader, speculation can continue. The work can be improved, modified, experimented with; this is the essence of open source culture. Everything is open ended with that exact intention, to promote and encourage experimentation with the hope that in the midst of play and tamper, there will be improvement and success. This does not exist solely in the design of open systems of literal user contribution. Michael Hansmeyer is an architect who works in the field of generative design. Hansmeyer’s works are almost self-producing where Hansmeyer just designs the algorithm which lets them grow: ‘One no longer designs an object, but a process to generate objects.’ (Hansmeyer, 2011). Hansmeyer produced a series of generatively designed columns for the Gwangju Design Biennale in 2011. In the process of constructing them Hansmeyer was forced to question his own agency in the design process of ‘his’ works. This draws parallels to the Barthes and Foucault notions of the author, and the inherent benefits of a full detachment of the author from the artefact.
The fact that there is discrepancy in Hansmeyer about his role and his creations raises questions about the human condition or the human psyche. Why is it that we must maintain ownership of something we create? Why must we attach our name to something which will be seen and used by others? Do we all inherently seek fame and recognition? Zygmunt Bauman raises an interesting paradox when he says ‘individuality is a matter of crowd spirit and a demand enforced by a crowd’ (Bauman, 2005). To be part of a crowd is to maintain individuality.
Open source culture is something can be extremely beneficial culturally and socially, but also has many deep social and cultural contradictions. However the open source model is an organic one. Deleuze and Guattari speak of the Rhizome (1980) as a well function model. Something which has no central stem or root, but functions en masse, such as a pack of rats or a fungal system. These are things which work without hierarchy but with mutual status working for a greater cause: the maintaing and improvement of the Rhizome. This ventures into territory I am interested in, but is perhaps beyond the scope of the dissertation I aim to write, as it looks at how a non-capitalsit structure operates within what is very much a culture based on top-down, Capitalist views. However, it may lead to more answers as to why open source may struggle to truly expand or reach a developmental peak.
Although authorship is a well studied topic in the world of philosophy, art and design, and the open source movement is a well documented and argued one, I do not feel there is a true connection of the two. I aim to provide a critical analysis of the open source culture and how it truly works on a psychological level and how that affects its core values.
Josh
Bibliography
Bauman, Z. (2005) Liquid life. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Certeau, M. (1984) The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Davies, C. and Parrinder, M. (2010) Limited language. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag.
Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1987) A thousand plateaus. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
DVICE (2012) Ethiopian kids hack OLPCs in 5 months with zero instruction. [online] Available at: http://www.dvice.com/archives/2012/10/ethiopian-kids.php [Accessed: 7 May 2013].
electricpulp.com (2013) Alltop – Top Open Source News. [online] Available at: http://open-source.alltop.com/ [Accessed: 7 May 2013].
Keen, A. (2007) The cult of the amateur. London: Nicholas Brealey.
Leadbeater, C. (2009) We-think. London: Profile Books.
Manovich, L. (2002) The language of new media. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Negroponte, N. (1995) Being digital. New York: Knopf.
Wiseman, B., Groves, J., & Appignanesi, R. (2000). Introducing Lévi-Strauss and structural anthropology. Cambridge, UK, Icon Books.
Senior, D. (2012) Access to Tools. Bulletins of the Serving Library, 1 (2), p.2 – 12.
Net-security.org (2013) Analyzing 450 million lines of software code. [online] Available at: http://www.net-security.org/secworld.php?id=14871 [Accessed: 7 May 2013].
Servinglibrary.org (2013) The Serving Library. [online] Available at: http://www.servinglibrary.org/ [Accessed: 7 May 2013].
Michael-hansmeyer.com (n.d.) Michael Hansmeyer – Computational Architecture. [online] Available at: http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/ [Accessed: 11 Mar 2013].
Supporting Images
Michael-hansmeyer.com (n.d.) Michael Hansmeyer – Computational Architecture: Columns. [online] Available at: http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/projects/columns.html?screenSize=1&color=1#13 [Accessed: 7 May 2013].
Josh Murr 