Difference between revisions of "The So-called Lookalike"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | == A letter to | + | == A fan-letter to variability, transitioning, situated techno-creativity and multi-centered transformation == |
| − | + | Dear Stuart, | |
| + | My name is Manetta and I am writing you in the middle of a collaboration with Possible Bodies. Together we are turning the''Volumetric Regimes'' research into a book. It will be published by Open Humanities Press (OHP) as part of the DATA browser series for which you designed a lay-out template a few years ago. | ||
| − | [ | + | For Possible Bodies it was important to take design decisions and tools into account as part of the content of the book, but also to extend the conditions of openness provided by OHP, which would make it possible for readers to download the PDF, but also enables them to learn about and reuse the editing, production and design process itself.<ref name="ftn382">From the introduction written by Possible Bodies:''Without wanting to suggest that FLOSS itself produces the conditions for non-hegemonic imaginations, we are convinced that its persistent commitment to transformation can facilitate radical experiments, and trans*feminist technical prototyping.''</ref> |
| + | |||
| + | The series editors insisted that we could take the design of the book into our own hands, as long as we would “follow the template”. They did not specify what this would mean exactly, but made clear that it was important for them that we honoured your original design. I realise now that I waited as long as I could, but today I could not postpone this part of the process any longer. The way the DATA browser books were produced so far is quite different from the way I work, so we needed to find a way to produce this lay-out otherwise, from scratch. This letter is my attempt to speak back to you, the template and xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. | ||
| + | |||
| + | My design and research practice is shaped by (and shapes)<ref name="ftn383">Inspired by Open Source Publishing’s (OSP) motto “TOOLS SHAPE PRACTICE SHAPE TOOLS” [https://osp.kitchen/ https://][https://osp.kitchen/ osp.kitchen/] </ref> free software<ref name="ftn384">The term ''free software'' is one that has triggered feelings of discomfort, which is something that emerged in conversation with peers at Varia, the collective-space that I am part of in Rotterdam. Within Varia we have not always felt comfortable with the degree of openness that open licenses provide. We observed that sometimes ''open access'' is a radical social operation that grants access (for example) to expensive academic journals. Feminist and queer communities fight for an inclusive understanding of ''freedom'' and ''openness'', which includes the freedom to exclude. In some places, ''openness'' has become an economical strategy in the form of an open bazaar. Other interpretations of ''openness'' operate within a libertarian perspective of individual freedom, sovereignty and free speech. In all these densities around notions of openness, a feeling of discomfort and awkwardness popped up. These reflections are noted down in the project Not for Any*, (date?) [https://vvvvvvaria.org/not-for-any/ https://vvvvvvaria.org/not-for-any/].</ref> and collective work. This practically translates into lay-outs being generated by scripts, books being rendered out of webpages and editorial workflows being transformed into collaborative environments. Working in this way allows me to stay with the complexities of technology, learn about the implications of lay-out software and approach the profession of design as an embedded networked practice, where learning and exchange is prioritized over competition and fame. | ||
| + | |||
| + | So today the strange game of sticking to our commitment to make this book look ''just'' like the other books in the series starts. But where to start? The InDesign files that were used for the other books in this series cannot be opened with any of my free software tools. Also the iterative workflow we have set up to collaborate on the design and the editing, does not match. | ||
| + | |||
| + | We’re working with a self-hosted MediaWiki platform, a “wiki” in short, that we as editors and designer can use to edit and structure the materials. From this wiki, we download and reformat everything into a single webpage, which becomes the main document that will be styled and turned into a lay-out using CSS3 paged media standards. We use the Javascript library Paged.js to paginate this lay-out in the browser and export it as the final PDF. Paged.js is a relatively new project developed by a group of people that closely work with the W3C consortium, which is the international organisation for web standards, such as HTML and CSS, and they decide which features will be supported by modern browsers and which not. I’ll end there, but the range of people, tools and environments that co-shape this design practice is much longer. The networks of people working with similar attitudes and sensibilities are actually indispensable for making this design practice possible and even viable. And who knows what will happen afterwards, once the material<ref name="ftn385">The material of Volumetric Regimes is gathered on a self-hosted MediaWiki: [https://volumetricregimes.xyz/ https://volumetricregimes.xyz]</ref> and documented code<ref name="ftn386">The code that has been used to produce this book can be found here: [https://git.vvvvvvaria.org/mb/volumetric-regimes-book https://git.vvvvvvaria.org/mb/volumetric-regimes-book].</ref> is published online and available for re-use thanks to the CC4r license.<ref name="ftn387">''The authored work released under the CC4r was never yours to begin with. The CC4r considers authorship to be part of a collective cultural effort and rejects authorship as ownership derived from individual genius. This means to recognize that it is situated in social and historical conditions and that there may be reasons to refrain from release and re-use. ''[https://constantvzw.org/wefts/cc4r.en.html https://constantvzw.org/wefts/cc4r.en.html]</ref> So besides the impossibility of trying to link up with a different and by now for me quite alien set of tools, I am wondering how to reconnect your pre-formatted aesthetics to the way this book is being made? And just now I realised that the script you used for generating the cover images is an iOS application that I can only access when I use my partner’s iPhone. | ||
| + | |||
| + | On the cover of Volumetric Regimes, we decided to use a response to Multi made by artist-researcher Winnie Soon, in which the face is not constructed out of typographic characters, but instead made out of variable geometric shapes using the Javascript library p5.js. The variable geometric face is published in the book Aesthetic Programming<ref name="ftn388">Aesthetic Programming, a programming textbook written by Winnie Soon and Geoff Cox and published by Open Humanities Press. [https://aesthetic-programming.net/pages/2-variable-geometry.html#section1 https://aesthetic-programming.net/]</ref>, where it is contextualised with a critical note on the face as a static technological symbolic object and “imperial machine”: ''The face is part of a surface that promotes sameness and ultimately rejects variations''.<ref name="ftn389">From the chapter Variable Geometries in Aesthetic Programming: ''In A Thousand Plateaus, Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari conceive of the face as “overcoded,” imposed upon us universally, resonating with some of the comments we made earlier in this chapter about Unicode. Their main point is that the face — what they called the “facial machine” — is tied to a specific Western history of ideas (e.g. the face of Jesus Christ). This, in turn, situates the origins of the face with white ethnicity (despite Jesus’s birthplace) and what they call “facialization” (the imposition onto the subject of the face) has been spread by white Europeans, and thus provides a way to understand racial prejudice: “Racism operates by the determination of degrees of deviance to the White man’s face…”.The face is thus understood as an “imperial machine,” subsuming language and other semiotic systems. The face is part of a surface that promotes sameness and ultimately rejects variations. SOURCE''</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | We found a font … and replicated the layout … etc. but how could this book actually ever pass as a lookalike of the so-called Stuart Bailey template, as an agile gesture of implementation for yet another bundle of content? What agency do design-interventions have once a template is set? How to design this book as part of a trans*feminist responsibility with the world-making praxis that design implies, shoulder to shoulder with companions that worked on editing this volume? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Of course these questions open up new and sharper ones, like for example the consideration of situated design, the implications of declutching content from form, the assumptions of agility and efficacy as editorial values... and so forth. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I decided to write you a letter as a way to reflect on this strangeness, and hopefully along the way I manage to describe how this book is radically different from the other books in the series. This is not a complaint, on the contrary. It is a way of making space to imagine different kinds of embedded design practices and to better understand how different ways of working are shaped by (and shape) different realities. As much as it is a letter to “you”, it is most of all a fan-letter to variability, transitioning, situated techno-creativity and multi-centered transformation; an attempt to bring in another kind of (surely crooked, interrupted, knotted and yet to be known) lineage or genealogy of worlding through design practices. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''''Manetta Berends''''' | ||
Revision as of 14:09, 24 October 2021
A fan-letter to variability, transitioning, situated techno-creativity and multi-centered transformation
Dear Stuart,
My name is Manetta and I am writing you in the middle of a collaboration with Possible Bodies. Together we are turning theVolumetric Regimes research into a book. It will be published by Open Humanities Press (OHP) as part of the DATA browser series for which you designed a lay-out template a few years ago.
For Possible Bodies it was important to take design decisions and tools into account as part of the content of the book, but also to extend the conditions of openness provided by OHP, which would make it possible for readers to download the PDF, but also enables them to learn about and reuse the editing, production and design process itself.[1]
The series editors insisted that we could take the design of the book into our own hands, as long as we would “follow the template”. They did not specify what this would mean exactly, but made clear that it was important for them that we honoured your original design. I realise now that I waited as long as I could, but today I could not postpone this part of the process any longer. The way the DATA browser books were produced so far is quite different from the way I work, so we needed to find a way to produce this lay-out otherwise, from scratch. This letter is my attempt to speak back to you, the template and xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
My design and research practice is shaped by (and shapes)[2] free software[3] and collective work. This practically translates into lay-outs being generated by scripts, books being rendered out of webpages and editorial workflows being transformed into collaborative environments. Working in this way allows me to stay with the complexities of technology, learn about the implications of lay-out software and approach the profession of design as an embedded networked practice, where learning and exchange is prioritized over competition and fame.
So today the strange game of sticking to our commitment to make this book look just like the other books in the series starts. But where to start? The InDesign files that were used for the other books in this series cannot be opened with any of my free software tools. Also the iterative workflow we have set up to collaborate on the design and the editing, does not match.
We’re working with a self-hosted MediaWiki platform, a “wiki” in short, that we as editors and designer can use to edit and structure the materials. From this wiki, we download and reformat everything into a single webpage, which becomes the main document that will be styled and turned into a lay-out using CSS3 paged media standards. We use the Javascript library Paged.js to paginate this lay-out in the browser and export it as the final PDF. Paged.js is a relatively new project developed by a group of people that closely work with the W3C consortium, which is the international organisation for web standards, such as HTML and CSS, and they decide which features will be supported by modern browsers and which not. I’ll end there, but the range of people, tools and environments that co-shape this design practice is much longer. The networks of people working with similar attitudes and sensibilities are actually indispensable for making this design practice possible and even viable. And who knows what will happen afterwards, once the material[4] and documented code[5] is published online and available for re-use thanks to the CC4r license.[6] So besides the impossibility of trying to link up with a different and by now for me quite alien set of tools, I am wondering how to reconnect your pre-formatted aesthetics to the way this book is being made? And just now I realised that the script you used for generating the cover images is an iOS application that I can only access when I use my partner’s iPhone.
On the cover of Volumetric Regimes, we decided to use a response to Multi made by artist-researcher Winnie Soon, in which the face is not constructed out of typographic characters, but instead made out of variable geometric shapes using the Javascript library p5.js. The variable geometric face is published in the book Aesthetic Programming[7], where it is contextualised with a critical note on the face as a static technological symbolic object and “imperial machine”: The face is part of a surface that promotes sameness and ultimately rejects variations.[8]
We found a font … and replicated the layout … etc. but how could this book actually ever pass as a lookalike of the so-called Stuart Bailey template, as an agile gesture of implementation for yet another bundle of content? What agency do design-interventions have once a template is set? How to design this book as part of a trans*feminist responsibility with the world-making praxis that design implies, shoulder to shoulder with companions that worked on editing this volume?
Of course these questions open up new and sharper ones, like for example the consideration of situated design, the implications of declutching content from form, the assumptions of agility and efficacy as editorial values... and so forth.
I decided to write you a letter as a way to reflect on this strangeness, and hopefully along the way I manage to describe how this book is radically different from the other books in the series. This is not a complaint, on the contrary. It is a way of making space to imagine different kinds of embedded design practices and to better understand how different ways of working are shaped by (and shape) different realities. As much as it is a letter to “you”, it is most of all a fan-letter to variability, transitioning, situated techno-creativity and multi-centered transformation; an attempt to bring in another kind of (surely crooked, interrupted, knotted and yet to be known) lineage or genealogy of worlding through design practices.
Manetta Berends
- ↑ From the introduction written by Possible Bodies:Without wanting to suggest that FLOSS itself produces the conditions for non-hegemonic imaginations, we are convinced that its persistent commitment to transformation can facilitate radical experiments, and trans*feminist technical prototyping.
- ↑ Inspired by Open Source Publishing’s (OSP) motto “TOOLS SHAPE PRACTICE SHAPE TOOLS” https://osp.kitchen/
- ↑ The term free software is one that has triggered feelings of discomfort, which is something that emerged in conversation with peers at Varia, the collective-space that I am part of in Rotterdam. Within Varia we have not always felt comfortable with the degree of openness that open licenses provide. We observed that sometimes open access is a radical social operation that grants access (for example) to expensive academic journals. Feminist and queer communities fight for an inclusive understanding of freedom and openness, which includes the freedom to exclude. In some places, openness has become an economical strategy in the form of an open bazaar. Other interpretations of openness operate within a libertarian perspective of individual freedom, sovereignty and free speech. In all these densities around notions of openness, a feeling of discomfort and awkwardness popped up. These reflections are noted down in the project Not for Any*, (date?) https://vvvvvvaria.org/not-for-any/.
- ↑ The material of Volumetric Regimes is gathered on a self-hosted MediaWiki: https://volumetricregimes.xyz
- ↑ The code that has been used to produce this book can be found here: https://git.vvvvvvaria.org/mb/volumetric-regimes-book.
- ↑ The authored work released under the CC4r was never yours to begin with. The CC4r considers authorship to be part of a collective cultural effort and rejects authorship as ownership derived from individual genius. This means to recognize that it is situated in social and historical conditions and that there may be reasons to refrain from release and re-use. https://constantvzw.org/wefts/cc4r.en.html
- ↑ Aesthetic Programming, a programming textbook written by Winnie Soon and Geoff Cox and published by Open Humanities Press. https://aesthetic-programming.net/
- ↑ From the chapter Variable Geometries in Aesthetic Programming: In A Thousand Plateaus, Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari conceive of the face as “overcoded,” imposed upon us universally, resonating with some of the comments we made earlier in this chapter about Unicode. Their main point is that the face — what they called the “facial machine” — is tied to a specific Western history of ideas (e.g. the face of Jesus Christ). This, in turn, situates the origins of the face with white ethnicity (despite Jesus’s birthplace) and what they call “facialization” (the imposition onto the subject of the face) has been spread by white Europeans, and thus provides a way to understand racial prejudice: “Racism operates by the determination of degrees of deviance to the White man’s face…”.The face is thus understood as an “imperial machine,” subsuming language and other semiotic systems. The face is part of a surface that promotes sameness and ultimately rejects variations. SOURCE
