Annotated Bibliography - The Disruptive Aesthetics of Design Activism: Enacting Design Between Art and Politics.

Details: Markussen, Thomas. “The Disruptive Aesthetics of Design Activism: Enact-ing Design Between Art and Politics.” Design Issues, vol. 29, no. 1, Winter 2013, pp. 38–50. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1162/DESI_a_00195.

In this article, Markussen addresses the concept of design activism and the limitations in the existing framework used to define it. He explores how it works, what makes it different from its relative counterparts such as political activism and arts activism, and its effects on people's everyday lives. Through this, he points out the limitations of existing frameworks and proposes the construct of a new conceptual framework in order to understand how design is used and able to disrupt the everyday lives of the public.

Markussen discusses how one cannot judge the effects of urban design activism on another movement's ideals. He first highlights the mis-categorisation of urban design activism and its various definitions. Due to its close link with political activism and anti-establishment movements, there is a general assumption that Urban design activism can be understood through borrowed concepts from either sociology or political theory. (38) He argues that while design activism shares similarities with other movements and arts activism practices such as “social interventionism”, “community art”, or uses techniques similar to those of the avant-garde, it cannot be interpreted based on those movements ideals as the effects achieved by exploiting them in a designerly way are different. (39) By modelling it on the basis of these one sided theories, we are unable to see the unique language of how design lends its power of resistance by being precisely a designed way of intervening in people's lives. Thus Markussen emphasises that because urban design activism has its own set of micro-political and aesthetic aspects, it has to be governed by its own framework for us to get a clearer understanding of its impact.

Markussen argues that the existing frameworks are limited and insufficient as they do not take the elements and material of urban activism into account. He argues that a design act should only be considered as design activism if it is able to evoke effects articulated by DiSalvo: revelation, content and dissensus through its aesthetic means and expression. (50) While he does acknowledge that the Five Capitals Framework by Fuad-luke helps us to understand the background of design activism such as its many problem spaces and ideological agendas, it does not account for how it works on its own conditions. (41) He also notes that Thorpe is too vague to allow for conceptual distinctions and bases her framework on sociological concepts, whilst DiSalvo ignores the aesthetic dimension of design activism. (41) These limitations result in frameworks which do not accurately reflect the basis of design activism, which may block our view of how design activism functions as an aesthetic practice and not just a socio-political one.

Markussen then proposes a new alternative framework to better understand design activism as a disruptive aesthetic practice. He references Ranciere’s notion of the aesthetic act being enacted according to the ‘logic of dissensus’ which refers to design acts that go against the social and cultural norms of a society. (45) Design activism should disrupt the consensus and reveal a gap between what people do and how they feel doing it, and it should behave as a non-violent unsettling of the self-evidence. (45) The new framework revolves around urban experiences like walking, dwelling, playing, gardening and recycling, which will be expanded as new experiences are added (50), shifting its focus on how design is able to disrupt our everyday lives or bring about awareness to issues we may not have access to usually. One example of this effect is the iSee inverse surveillance camera project, which reveals the locations of CCTV cameras in cities like New York. (46) This highlighted the increasing surveillance taking place without public knowledge, allowing people to create their own paths of least surveillance, effectively altering their everyday behaviour. (47) Thus the new framework acknowledges that the power of design activism lies in its subtle way of exposing hierarchies (45) and focuses on the effect evoked in the people and not the techniques used as they do not define design activism. (50)

In conclusion, this article is useful as Markussen discusses how one cannot judge the effects of urban design activism on another movement's ideals, and highlights the mis-categorisation of urban design activism and its various definitions. He also mentions the limitations of existing frameworks and how they do not take the elements and material of urban activism into account. Markussen then proposes a new alternative framework to better understand design activism as a disruptive aesthetic practice which aims to be considered as an initial step towards a more complete picture of design activism.

756 Words