Design Fiction Something and the
Something in the age of the Something. [ideas in process. tread lightly.] Julian Bleecker Design Engaged 2008 Montreal October 3, 2008

Design Fiction
Why Engage Design?

Design Fiction Thinking of design
as something that can shape the future, bring about change, craft new sorts of habitable worlds.

Design Fiction But, like..Design? You’re
an Engineer? And the Art stuff? And that Teaching thing?

Presentation Schema 1. Representations of
the Future 2. Relating the Future and the Present 3. Props and Prototypes

1. Representations of the Future
How do we imagine what can come to be? What are the ways the future will be and how does that shape what we consider reasonable, possible futures?

3 Representations of the Future.
..and 2.5 Provocative Quotes to go along with them.

Quote One. “You never change
things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” - R. Buckminster Fuller

Quote One (and it’s diagram).
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” - R. Buckminster Fuller Linear Representation of the Future

Quote Two. “As I’ve said
many times, the future is here. It’s just not evenly distributed.” - William Gibson

“As I’ve said many times,
(andfuture is here. It’s just not Quote Two the its diagram) evenly distributed.” - WG “As I’ve said many times, the future is here. It’s just not evenly distributed.” - WG Sandwich Spread Representation of the Future

Quote Two and a half..kinda
“...” - Bruno Latour

Quote Two and a half..a
bit more. “...” - Bruno Latour “Νέα ως, Knots εκτελέσει Entanglements . Στο Imbroglios εκδόσεις. Assemblages βγήκε περισσότερο ας σαν, μην Collectives .” - Bruno Latour

Quote Two and a half
(and a diagram). “...” - Bruno Latour The 3D Linkages of Human/Non- Human Collectives Representation of the Future

Two and a half. “In
50 years, social scientists will be able to visualise the connections between human organisations and technological objects. Today we know how to visualise technological systems using scientific images and technical drawings, but we have no idea of how to hook those designs up with the arrays of emails, spreadsheets, blogs and pieces of paper that organise the people who operate those systems.” - Bruno Latour The 3D Linkages of Human/Non- Human Collectives Representation of the Future Complex knots and linkages between many disparate social practices create thick representations of human activities, including our projections and imaginations about the future.

Recap.. Linear Representation of the
Future

Recap.. A planar representation of
the future, it exists in different places simultaneously and you can smear it about to get it evenly distributed, but it is lumpy in bits and doesn’t get to everyone evenly.

A spherical representation of the
future, collections/collectives of conversations & objects, human/non-human agents. There are many futures, many possible inhabited worlds. A representation that consists of complex, messy knots/collectives/imbroglios. Some collectives are better at maintaining themselves. They’ve got strong objects with lots of attention and adhesion. They have lots of idea-mass that draws other conversations and objects towards them.

2. Ubicomp + SciFi An
example of a quot;collectivequot; construction of a future world in this third representation; what are the elements that constitute the collective knot/embroglio? For ubicomp it's telling that it's more than a linear or planar track because of how much quot;culturequot; is in there, how complicated it becomes because you start involving people and their pragmatic, everyday lives very richly and thickly; anthropology in on the ubicomp game early on with Lucy Suchman's involvement at PARC; it's a more complicated, knotty, thorny, intractable endeavor. (Maybe why it's endlessly deferred.)

2. Ubicomp + SciFi Why
Ubicomp?

2. Ubicomp + SciFi Considering
a response to Bell & Dourish, “Resistance is Futile: Reading Science Fiction Alongside of Ubiquitous Computing” (pre- pub)

quot;..we are interested in the
ways in which science fiction – the literary figuring of future technologies rather than the practical figuring of much contemporary research – engages with a series of questions about the social and cultural contexts of technology use that help us reflect upon assumptions within technological research.quot; Bell & Dourish, “Resistance is Futile: Reading Science Fiction Alongside of Ubiquitous Computing”

The look at: Five Shows:
Dr. Who, Star Trek, Planet of the Apes, Blake's 7, Hitch- Hikers Guide to the Galaxy Three Themes: Bureacracy, Technological Breakdown, Frontier and Empire Put together to fashion a perspective that tells a story about ubiquitous computing-y things as they’re projected into various sci-fi narratives

But..I Would Say.. Ubicomp Is
SciFi!

Huh? Ubicomp ties intricately and
plainly to a larger cultural imaginary; more so than many other “engineering” practices. It’s fodder for film and, as importantly (maybe more so?) it provides a reference point for engineers and scientists in the laboratory!

For example: How is the
“Minority Report Interface” Claimed? Who Stakes Out This Idiom? How is this phrase a Messy Latorian Assemblage? Ask The Google..

Blurry lines between the sci-fi
props and research prototypes

“The Film”

Right alongside of “Science” “Turtle-necked
Jeff Hahn” (friend, so it’s all good) Whole bunch of links to people who claim “minority report interface” research

More blurry sci-fi science

More blurry sci-fi science Text
Realistic dinosaurs as a special-effect, produced to be visually compelling as a “prop” to help tell a story more compelling than a dowdy documentary.

More blurry sci-fi science

More blurry sci-fi science Wow..
cf. David A. Kirby “Science Consultants, Fictional Films, and Scientific Practice” Social Studies of Science 33/2 (April 2003) pp. 231-268 cf. Julian Bleecker, “The Reality Effect of Technoscience” 2004, unpublished dissertation http://tinyurl.com/3roy6s

Conversation Collectives Deployment, refraction and
idea-mass, a 3D Latourian representation of the future. Conversations shaped by human and non-human objects and their deployment, circulation and potential to draw more agents. Con: Biggest mouth, and wallet, makes bigger conversations Pro: Their can be many multiple collectives, with varying degrees of “idea-mass” Con: It can be frustrating to have some good stuff that can make more habitable worlds, and not have the most idea-massive collective. Pro: But..you can still have your future, even if it is not everyone elses.

3. Props & Prototypes

3. Props & Prototypes Let’s
look quickly at two kinds of prototypes 1. Prototypes in their canonical form. 2. Diegetic Prototypes

Canonical Prototypes. Functionality.

Canonical Prototypes. Fit and Mechanics.

Canonical Prototypes

Diegetic Prototypes (“Props”) Space may
be the final frontier but it’s made in a Hollywood basement. - Red Hot Chili Peppers, “Californication,” 1999

Diegetic Prototypes (“Props”) quot;..cinematic depictions
of future technologies are actually “diegetic prototypes” that demonstrate to large public audiences a technology’s need, benevolence, and viability. I show how diegetic prototypes have a major rhetorical advantage over true prototypes: in the diegesis these technologies exist as “real” objects that function properly and which people actually use.quot; David A. Kirby, “The Future Is Now: Diegetic Prototypes, and the Cinematic Creation of the Future” (pre-pub)

Diegetic Prototypes (“Props”) quot;..cinematic depictions
of future technologies are actually “diegetic prototypes” that demonstrate to large public audiences a technology’s need, benevolence, and viability. I show how diegetic prototypes have a major rhetorical advantage over true prototypes: in the diegesis these technologies exist as “real” objects that function properly and which people actually use.quot; David A. Kirby, “The Future Is Now: Diegetic Prototypes, and the Cinematic Creation of the Future”

Diegetic Prototypes (“Props”) quot;..cinematic depictions
of future technologies are actually “diegetic prototypes” that demonstrate to large public audiences a technology’s need, benevolence, and viability. I show how diegetic prototypes have a major rhetorical advantage over true prototypes: in the diegesis these technologies exist as “real” objects that function properly and which people actually use.quot; David A. Kirby, “The Future Is Now: Diegetic Prototypes, and the Cinematic Creation of the Future” Wow. Stories matter when designing the future. Maybe even more than the “real thing” in terms of their ability to flash-bang the imagination of real people. Ideas are more powerful than a crappy product that aspires to the idea.

Props & Prototypes Think of
design as prop-making for the near future. Design makes objects (non-humans) around which stories/conversations ensure, and imaginary worlds come into being.

Prototypes/Props are Idea-Mass Offer ways
of telling stories and crafting adhesion to these collectives of ideas and conversations through an object. Props and prototypes provide the seeds for evolving conversation-collectives. They behave as constitutive elements for the collectives/knots/embroglios — the collectives need material props of some sort, human/non-human elements to create idea-mass, to collect more attention.

Prototypes/Props are Idea-Mass Design can
also be a kind of fiction making; design-fiction.

Prototypes/Props are Idea-Mass Design is
speculative prototypes; things that are real sci-fi, really curious and orthogonal to the conventions of technology-market-economies. Measure of success: “Stupidest fucking idea..EVER!” Probes into imaginary, peculiar worlds.

So..what? Objects tell stories for
people, not scenarios for users. There are many futures, no inevitabilities. Make lots of stuff, quickly. Assume weird (or no) market models; weird imaginary worlds. Assume you are from a future.

Thanks. julian at nearfuturelaboratory dot
c julian dot bleecker at nokia dot c