I thoroughly enjoyed reading Tonkinwise, I wish there was more. I can safely claim that I’m his fan now since I followed him on twitter.
1. We are again thinking too much here I say. Arguments, analysis and counter arguments. I would like to go HCI way. Let users decide. Lets just make stuff and user test it. Make bunch of stuff and do comparative analysis of which method moves the viewer the most? I would reiterate my previous point here – I want to make an experiential object from future, which is immersive- less fictional than a movie but more engaging than an object in museum.
2. Why is there this dire need of categorizing and decomposing this space? Discursive, speculative, associative, critical, interrogative, adversarial..too many names. I do not care if something is speculative or not. I do not care if my definition of speculative is different than that of DnR. My fundamental problem with design is sometimes there is abundance of philosophy and no proof.
Many domain experts do speculative design without even realizing it. Examples presented in Speculative Everything do not mention any of these.
I attended a guest lecture from Oran Catts yesterday. He is using tissue culture as medium to speculate future. He could be easily categorized as speculative designer although he thinks his works are piece of art. He creates fully functional crafts which are disruptive.
3. DnR are creating focussed futures – Designing objects of future for only a certain group of people. They are focussed on wealthy western world. I agree with Tonkinwise, what about cultural differences and unequal distribution of wealth?
4. DnR’s work is still gimmicky for me. It seems to me that it is carefully crafted for museum or a photograph that can be easily spread across in media. It lacks the real meat of critical engineering, it doesn’t provoke you as much as Oran Catt’s neolifism and doesn’t take you as near to future as Tatsuya Matsui’s empathetic robots.