La seduccion de los objetos / The seduction of objects
Farruggia, Nazario, Creciente
Publisher: Embajada de Canada
ISBN: 987-43-6600-1
Size: 17,5 X 26 cm.
Language: Spanish
Pages: 180

Reviewing and adapting some of Guy Julier’s thoughts in his book on the Culture of Design:

Yesterday’s BBC programme on attraction (part of the Secret of the Sexes Series) was very thought provoking.

Through metrics followed by a series of experiments, scientists were trying to extrapolate the universal rules of attraction. They started working from the hypothesis that people with facial similarity would be attracted to each other. They measured a group’s facial metrics and established matches. They then, through a speed dating experiment, they measured (with the aid of a 1-to-100 digital dial at the side of the table) first impressions and the any changes in measurement after the 3-minutes conversations. Three ‘seducers’ were introduced as a control group.

Needless to say, the hypothesis was proven wrong as no couples ‘hit it off’. However, they established that first impressions are decisive and the 3-minute conversations made no substantial change in the attraction measurement.

Though computer programmes that created ‘perfect’ matches, they then had a look at other aspects of attraction like compatibility and body (men are attracted to a particular waist-hip ratio, whereas women give importance to height). But the most interesting experiment was, in my opinion, giving faces a feminine/masculine value to test if one is attracted to the other.

No study was conclusive. Studying attraction solely through metrics can be extremely problematic as they can’t encompass idiosyncrasies, cultures etc… But that didn’t matter so much as the experiments made me think about my own:

- What would happen if I gave objects a masculinity / femininity score?
- Will I have to go into these gender issues?
- What kind of metrics (if any) will my study require?
- Can I create a speed-dating-with-objects methodology followed by (or instead of) focus groups?

Conference Abstract

What could art learn from design, what might design learn from art? Some practice-based art doctorates.

Beryl Graham,
University of Sunderland, UK

Aimed at artists and designers involved in Ph.D. research, this paper briefly outlines four examples of doctoral research projects at Sunderland University: Johnston’s glass Ph.D. involving materials research, Hogarth’s practice-led sculpture Ph.D., Baker’s theory-informed photography research, and the author’s hybrid approach concerning interactive art. Varying positions of practice within research are explored, and some problems of interdisciplinarity are highlighted.
As starting points for discussion, some areas of common ground between art and design research are suggested (including the space for ‘failure’ and humility in a research process). Referring briefly to some other examples of art research, the paper goes on to pose some opinions on what artists might learn from designers (and vice versa) in a research context. Suggested areas concern process and method, as well as parricide and infanticide.

*

Yesterday, I attended the ‘Revealing Practice’ conference, led a some of my research students at Wimbledon School of Art in collaboration with Kingston University. I was very interested in one of the speakers, Dr Beryl Graham. In 2000, Beryl wrote a really interesting paper, that may reinforce some of the emphasis of my own research on seduction.

In “What could art learn from design, what might design learn from art?” (In: Friedman, Ken and David Durling (eds.) Proceedings of the conference Doctoral Education in Design: Foundations for the future. Stoke-on-Trent: Staffordshire University Press. 425-434), Beryl outlines how Art could learn a willingness to kill one‚Äôs children from Design, to incorporate feedback as part opf the creative process, to be less protective about the outcome, to be unsuccessful but have mechanisms to overcome that. In contrast, Design could learn a willinfgness to kill one‚Äôs parent‚Äôs from Art, to challenge one‚Äôs peers, to reject tradition to be more readily inclined to innovate radically.

Why would I introduce feedback mechanisms into the artistic creative process was one of the questions that cropped up in my PhD interview at Chelsea. I tried to argue the point as best as I could but I framed it in research terms instead of a difference encountered in Art and Design creative processes, ie: “This is not Art, it is research and feedback is necessary for the research process”. Beryl’s argument provides a new strengh to mine, a subject specific one, rather than simply an activity one and it may be that this new emphasis informs my original contribution to knowledge, which will be in the area of methodologies.