"Bias is required to do the work of agonism."

May 15, 2012 4:59 AM

What do Amy and Klara, Exxon Secrets, and MAICgregator have in common? They are all examples of Adversarial Design.
posted by jkolko (15 comments total)

Each of those are interesting (the robots especially so) but the last link doesn't really explain what adversarial design is, beyond that it includes:
*computational visualizations of networks of power and influence
*therapy robots that shape sociability
*everyday objects embedded with microchips that enable users to circumvent surveillance

Those all seems like functionality or activism rather than design, never mind adversarial design.
posted by postcommunism at 5:22 AM on May 15, 2012

I suppose it depends on your view and definition of design. What's yours?
posted by jkolko at 5:27 AM on May 15, 2012

eh?
posted by MuffinMan at 5:36 AM on May 15, 2012

Well, some people view design as about aesthetics.

Others view it as a form of problem solving and thinking.

Others see it as a form of rhetoric - an argument for how the world should be.

If you take the last approach, Adversarial Design makes a lot of sense.
posted by jkolko at 5:42 AM on May 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

I found this blog by Carl DiSalvo, who wrote the book in the last link. Unfortunately, I still have very little idea what "adversarial design" is or why it's interesting. Is there anything online that explains this in more detail than the brief abstract on the publisher's site?
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 5:59 AM on May 15, 2012

Well, some people view design as about aesthetics.

Others view it as a form of problem solving and thinking.

Others see it as a form of rhetoric - an argument for how the world should be.

Grammar, logic and rhetoric? Has anyone taught design this way?
posted by michaelh at 5:59 AM on May 15, 2012

I like the rhetoric approach (and given the linked text, it looks like yes, anyone has indeed taught design this way) but it only seems to apply when "design" is closer to "aesthetic" than not. Or as interaction, but only to the extent of interaction possible with the object. A UI or a floorplan (or a Pythagorean cup) might be an argument about how things should be but any critiques or arguments you can extract from the design of, say, a fighter jet is less about the design and more about the function and purpose that design supports.

Anyway, it looks like this is really a semantic quibble, and something of a derail.
posted by postcommunism at 6:15 AM on May 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

and given the linked text, it looks like yes, anyone has indeed taught design this way

Did I miss it? I didn't see the grammar and logic stages of design, just rhetoric as a debate/political tool.
posted by michaelh at 6:49 AM on May 15, 2012

By grammar, do you mean patterns? There's been a number of pattern approaches to design => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaction_design_pattern
posted by jkolko at 7:01 AM on May 15, 2012

Roughly, yes, but who has presented patterns as grammar and then proceeded to logic and rhetoric?
posted by michaelh at 7:11 AM on May 15, 2012

Roughly, yes, but who has presented patterns as grammar and then proceeded to logic and rhetoric?

Wait... this is one of those things where the answer is "Hitler", right?
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 8:30 AM on May 15, 2012

michaelh: "Grammar, logic and rhetoric? Has anyone taught design this way?"

this question was in response to:

jkolko: "Others see it as a form of rhetoric - an argument for how the world should be. "

which links to an essay with the following bibliography:

REFERENCES :

Buchanan, R 1989, 'Declaration by Design: Rhetoric, Argument, and Demonstration in Design Practice', in EV Margolin (ed.), Design Discourse: History, Theory, Criticism., Chicago UP, Chicago, pp. 91-109.

Marzano, SCvbdT 1999, Creating value by design : Facts, 2nd ed. edn, V+K Pub. ; London : Lund Humphries, Blaricum.

Morgan, CL & Starck, P 1999, Starck, Universe, New York.

Papanek, V 1995, The green imperative : ecology and ethics in design and architecture, Thames and Hudson, London.

Sierra, S 2006, Santiago Sierra: Art Vs Globalisation, ABC TV Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Stegall, N 2006, 'Designing for Sustainability: A Philosophy for Ecologically Intentional Design', in Design Issues, vol. Spring2006,, pp. p56-63.

Sutherland, M 1993, Advertising and the mind of the consumer : what works, what doesn't, and why, Allen & Unwin, St. Leonards, NSW.

posted by idiopath at 8:57 AM on May 15, 2012

Idiopath, it looks like none of those take the trivium approach. That doesn't prove a negative, of course.
posted by michaelh at 9:37 AM on May 15, 2012

"Adversarial Design" sounds to me like it'd be about collapsing chairs, mislabeled doors, or cruel shoes.
posted by Mister Moofoo at 9:47 AM on May 15, 2012

The "Exxon Secrets" link wouldn't load on my iPad because it requires Flash.

Talk about adversarial design.
posted by Trurl at 5:38 PM on May 15, 2012