Mollon, M., & Gentes, A. (2014). The Rhetoric of Design for Debate: triggering conversation with an “uncanny enough” artefact (pp. 1–13). In the proceedings of the Design Research Society International Consortium (DRS), Umeå, Sweden. (June 18th) DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27693.49123 – Retrieved from: http://bit.ly/DRS14-mollon

1. MAX MOLLON
Ph.D. CANDIDATE
INTERACTION DESIGN
RESEARCH BY PRACTICE
SACRe PSL
ENSADLab/ Sociable Media
Telecom ParisTech/ Codesign Lab
ANNIE GENTES
ASSOCIATE PR.
INFORMATION AND
COMMUNICATION SCIENCES
Telecom ParisTech/ Codesign Lab & Media Studies
DESIGN RESEARCH CONFERENCE 2014
UMEÅ, SWEDEN, 2014 JUNE 16-19TH

2. MAX MOLLON
Ph.D. CANDIDATE
INTERACTION DESIGN
RESEARCH BY PRACTICE
SACRe PSL
ENSADLab/ Sociable Media
Telecom ParisTech/ Codesign Lab
ANNIE GENTES
ASSOCIATE PR.
INFORMATION AND
COMMUNICATION SCIENCES
Telecom ParisTech/ Codesign Lab & Media Studies
DESIGN RESEARCH CONFERENCE 2014
UMEÅ, SWEDEN, 2014 JUNE 16-19TH

3. THE RHETORIC OF DESIGN FOR DEBATE:
TRIGGERING CONVERSATION WITH
AN “UNCANNY ENOUGH” ARTEFACT

4. THE RHETORIC OF DESIGN FOR DEBATE:
TRIGGERING CONVERSATION WITH
AN “UNCANNY ENOUGH” ARTEFACT
PROPOSE ALTERNATIVES — ENGAGE REFLECTION — SPARK DISCUSSION
SCHÖN, D. A. (1983).THE REFLECTIVE PRACTITIONER. BASIC BOOKS.

5. THE RHETORIC OF DESIGN FOR DEBATE:
TRIGGERING CONVERSATION WITH
AN “UNCANNY ENOUGH” ARTEFACT
PROPOSE ALTERNATIVES — ENGAGE REFLECTION — SPARK DISCUSSION
SCHÖN, D. A. (1983).THE REFLECTIVE PRACTITIONER. BASIC BOOKS.

6. THE RHETORIC OF DESIGN FOR DEBATE:
TRIGGERING CONVERSATION WITH
AN “UNCANNY ENOUGH” ARTEFACT
PROPOSE ALTERNATIVES — ENGAGE REFLECTION — SPARK DISCUSSION

7. THE RHETORIC OF DESIGN FOR DEBATE:
TRIGGERING CONVERSATION WITH
AN “UNCANNY ENOUGH” ARTEFACT
PROPOSE ALTERNATIVES — ENGAGE REFLECTION — SPARK DISCUSSION
KERRIDGE,T. (2009). DOES SPECULATIVE DESIGN CONTRIBUTE TO PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY?

8. THE RHETORIC OF DESIGN FOR DEBATE:
TRIGGERING CONVERSATION WITH
AN “UNCANNY ENOUGH” ARTEFACT
PROPOSE ALTERNATIVES — ENGAGE REFLECTION — SPARK DISCUSSION

9. HOW DOES DESIGN
UNSETTLE EMOTIONS
TO ENGAGE AN AUDIENCE?
THE RHETORIC OF DESIGN FOR DEBATE:
TRIGGERING CONVERSATION WITH
AN “UNCANNY ENOUGH” ARTEFACT

10. HOW DOES DESIGN
UNSETTLE EMOTIONS
TO ENGAGE AN AUDIENCE?
THE RHETORIC OF DESIGN FOR DEBATE:
TRIGGERING CONVERSATION WITH
AN “UNCANNY ENOUGH” ARTEFACT

11. 1. CONTEXT
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
3. USECASE
4. LARGER FRAMEWORK
ROADMAP CONTRIBUTIONS

12. ROADMAP CONTRIBUTIONS
1. CONTEXT
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
3. USECASE
4. LARGER FRAMEWORK
Playing on emotions as a
way to engage the audience
Methodological insights:
uncanny-enough artefacts

13. ROADMAP
1. CONTEXT
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
3. USECASE
4. LARGER FRAMEWORK
Methodological insights:
uncanny-enough artefacts
Theoretical Framework:
Classic Rhetoric
Playing on emotions as a
way to engage the audience
Art of persuasion
CONTRIBUTIONS

14. 1. CONTEXT

15. Speculative design, Conceptual design,
Contestable futures, Cautionary tales, Activism,
Design for debate, Design fiction, Discursive design,
Interrogative design, Probe design, Radical design,
Satire, Social fiction…
“
”
DUNNE, A. (2012) PERSONAL COMMUNICATION, DUBLIN, FEBRUARY 03RD

16. ARCHIGRAM, (70’S) MOVING CITIES. DUNNE & RABY, (2001) ELECTRO-DRAUGHT EXCLUDER, FROM PLACEBO PROJECT.
AUGER-LOIZEAU, (2001) AUDIOTOOTH IMPLANT.JULIAN OLIVER, (2012) TRANSPARENCY GRENADE.

17. JAMES AUGER (RCA),JIMMY LOIZEAU (GOLDSMITH UNIVERSITY), FIONA RABBY (UAA VIENNA), ANTHONY DUNNE (RCA),
JULIAN BLEEKER (NEARFUTURELAB), PAUL GARDIEN (PHILIPS), ARCHIGRAM (UK),JULIAN OLIVER (DE) (T-LEFT TO B-RIGHT)

18. JAMES AUGER (RCA),JIMMY LOIZEAU (GOLDSMITH UNIVERSITY), FIONA RABBY (UAA VIENNA), ANTHONY DUNNE (RCA),
JULIAN BLEEKER (NEARFUTURELAB), PAUL GARDIEN (PHILIPS), ARCHIGRAM (UK),JULIAN OLIVER (DE) (T-LEFT TO B-RIGHT)

19. BARDZELL, S., BARDZELL,J., FORLIZZI,J.,ZIMMERMAN,J., & ANTANITIS,J. (2012). CRITICAL DESIGN AND CRITICAL THEORY:
THE CHALLENGE OF DESIGNING FOR PROVOCATION (PP. 288–297). PRESENTED AT THE MULTIPLE VALUES SELECTED, NEW
YORK, NEW YORK, USA
BOSCH,T. (2012, 02 MARCH). SCI-FI WRITER BRUCE STERLING EXPLAINS THE INTRIGUING NEW CONCEPT OF DESIGN FICTION.
SLATE.COM. RETRIEVED MARCH 2013, FROM HTTP://WWW.SLATE.COM/BLOGS/FUTURE_TENSE/2012/03/02/
BRUCE_STERLING_ON_DESIGN_FICTIONS_. HTML
DUNNE, A., & RABY, F. (2001). DESIGN NOIR:THE SECRET LIFE OF ELECTRONIC OBJECTS. AUGUST MEDIA.
DUNNE, A. (2009). INTERPRETATION COLLABORATION, AND CRITIQUE. (R. RICKENBERG, ED.)WWW.DUNNEANDRABY.CO.UK.
RETRIEVED FROM HTTP://WWW.DUNNEANDRABY.CO.UK/CONTENT/BYDANDR/465/0
FALLMAN, D. (2008).THE INTERACTION DESIGN RESEARCH TRIANGLE OF DESIGN PRACTICE, DESIGN STUDIES, AND DESIGN
EXPLORATION. DESIGN ISSUES, 24(3), 4–18.
KERRIDGE,T. (2009). DOES SPECULATIVE DESIGN CONTRIBUTE TO PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY? (PP.
1–18). PRESENTED AT THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SWISS DESIGN NETWORK SYMPOSIUM, LUGANO.
KIRBY, D. (2010).THE FUTURE IS NOW:DIEGETIC PROTOTYPES AND THE ROLE OF POPULAR FILMS IN GENERATING REAL-
WORLD TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT. SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, 40(1), 41–70.
STERLING, B. (2009). DESIGN FICTION. INTERACTIONS, 16(3).
AUGER,J. H. (2012). WHY ROBOT? SPECULATIVE DESIGN,THE DOMESTICATION OF TECHNOLOGY AND THE CONSIDERED
FUTURE.THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART.
BLEECKER,J. (2009). DESIGN FICTION. NEAR FUTURE LABORATORY.
DUNNE, A. (1999). HERTZIAN TALES:ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS, AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE AND CRITICAL DESIGN. LONDON:THE
ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART COMPUTER RELATED DESIGN RESEARCH STUDIO.

20. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW:UNCANNY

21. It was also necessary to provide a convincing
description, in layman’s terms, of the technology
involved. [...] This description helped in
convincing those with a good understanding of
electronic technology.
(AUGER, 2012, P.158)
[…] the detail and finish of the artefacts,
combined with the short explanations describing
their functions and modes of interaction, entices
the audience into exploring the concept further.
(AUGER, 2012, P.145)
In this way the speculations appear convincing,
plausible or personal, whilst at the same time new
or alternative.
(AUGER, 2012, P.180)
I want to highlight what the story does so as to fill
out the meaning of the clue-construction device,
to make it something legible despite its foreignness
(BLEECKER, 2009, P.35).
For technological believability, the Audio Tooth
Implant relies on a general public awareness of
hard and well-publicised facts
(AUGER, 2012, P.158)
“

22. In effect a design speculation requires a
‘perceptual bridge’ between the audience
and the concept.
(AUGER, 2012, P.140)
These “perceptual bridges” can then be stretched
in precise ways: this might be a technical
perception such as extrapolating how they think a
technology is likely to develop; a psychological
perception such as not breaking taste or behaviour
taboos; or a cultural perception such as exploiting
nostalgia or familiarity with a particular subject. […]
(AUGER, 2012, P.180)
“

23. Bridge: makes the strange probable
In effect a design speculation requires a
‘perceptual bridge’ between the audience
and the concept.
(AUGER, 2012, P.140)
These “perceptual bridges” can then be stretched
in precise ways: this might be a technical
perception such as extrapolating how they think a
technology is likely to develop; a psychological
perception such as not breaking taste or behaviour
taboos; or a cultural perception such as exploiting
nostalgia or familiarity with a particular subject. […]
(AUGER, 2012, P.180)
“

24. […] something legible despite its foreignness
(BLEECKER, 2009, P.35).
The success of this process requires viewers
to occupy a “fecund middle-ground”
(S. BARDZELL ET AL., 2012).
Things have to be not-quite-right; this
awkwardness is a way into the object
(DUNNE & RABY, 2009).
If it was too correct and as expected, they would
glance once and move on. If the object is too open-
ended in terms of meaning, then it can seem empty.
(DUNNE & RABY, 2001, P.2).
A slight strangeness is the key— too weird and
they are instantly dismissed, not strange enough
and they’re absorbed into everyday reality
(DUNNE & RABY, 2001, P.63).
If a speculative design proposal strays too far
into the future to present clearly implausible
conceptsordescribesacompletelyalientechnological
habitat, the audience will fail to relate to the
proposal, resulting in a lack of engagement
or connection.
(AUGER, 2012, P.138-140)
This effectively heightened the familiar aspect of
the uncanny experience. [...] This encouraged the
audience to reflect on how they themselves might
use the battery, countering the initial repulsion
factor and resulting in a form of desirable uncanny.
(AUGER, 2012)
“

25. Balance: not too much nor not enough
If a speculative design proposal strays too far
into the future to present clearly implausible
conceptsordescribesacompletelyalientechnological
habitat, the audience will fail to relate to the
proposal, resulting in a lack of engagement
or connection.
(AUGER, 2012, P.138-140)
This effectively heightened the familiar aspect of
the uncanny experience. [...] This encouraged the
audience to reflect on how they themselves might
use the battery, countering the initial repulsion
factor and resulting in a form of desirable uncanny.
(AUGER, 2012)
“

26. Balance: not too much nor not enough
If a speculative design proposal strays too far
into the future to present clearly implausible
conceptsordescribesacompletelyalientechnological
habitat, the audience will fail to relate to the
proposal, resulting in a lack of engagement
or connection.
(AUGER, 2012, P.138-140)
This effectively heightened the familiar aspect of
the uncanny experience. [...] This encouraged the
audience to reflect on how they themselves might
use the battery, countering the initial repulsion
factor and resulting in a form of desirable uncanny.
(AUGER, 2012)
“

27. If a speculative design proposal strays too far
into the future to present clearly implausible
conceptsordescribesacompletelyalientechnological
habitat, the audience will fail to relate to the
proposal, resulting in a lack of engagement
or connection.
(AUGER, 2012, P.138-140)
This effectively heightened the familiar aspect of
the uncanny experience. [...] This encouraged the
audience to reflect on how they themselves might
use the battery, countering the initial repulsion
factor and resulting in a form of desirable uncanny.
(AUGER, 2012)
“Freud goes on to suggest that by using the
uncanny, ‘the story-teller has a peculiarly directive
power over us; by means of the moods he can put
us into, he is able to guide the current of our
emotions’.”
(AUGER, 2012, P.138-150)
[…] and how it can be consciously manipulated
to elicit reaction.
(AUGER, 2012, P.138-140)
“

28. If a speculative design proposal strays too far
into the future to present clearly implausible
conceptsordescribesacompletelyalientechnological
habitat, the audience will fail to relate to the
proposal, resulting in a lack of engagement
or connection.
(AUGER, 2012, P.138-140)
This effectively heightened the familiar aspect of
the uncanny experience. [...] This encouraged the
audience to reflect on how they themselves might
use the battery, countering the initial repulsion
factor and resulting in a form of desirable uncanny.
(AUGER, 2012)
“Freud goes on to suggest that by using the
uncanny, ‘the story-teller has a peculiarly directive
power over us; by means of the moods he can put
us into, he is able to guide the current of our
emotions’.”
(AUGER, 2012, P.138-150)
[…] and how it can be consciously manipulated
to elicit reaction.
(AUGER, 2012, P.138-140)
“

29. UNCANNY
unsettles your emotions,
when something feels both
familiar and unfamiliar
As a way to engage
the audience
ISHIGURO, HIROSHI. (2010). GEMINIOID

30. Uncanny:
when something feels both
familiar and unfamiliar
Used as a design principle
for engaging people
Balance: not too much nor not enoughBridge: makes the strange probable

31. Uncanny:
when something feels both
familiar and unfamiliar
Used as a design principle
for engaging people
Balance: not too much nor not enoughBridge: makes the strange probable

32. 3. USECASE:DOG&BONE

33. 3. USECASE:DOG&BONE

35. http://vimeo.com/maxmollon/dogandbone

43. ?
Balance: not too much nor not enoughBridge: makes the strange probable

44. BRIDGE

45. BRIDGE

46. BRIDGE

47. …
…
BALANCE

48. BALANCE

49. BALANCE

50. 4. FRAMEWORK:RHETORIC

51. 4. FRAMEWORK:RHETORIC

52. RHETORIC
An art of persuasion
• Legitimacy
• Logic
• Emotions

53. RHETORIC
An art of persuasion
• Legitimacy
• Logic
• Emotions

54. RHETORIC
An art of persuasion
• Legitimacy
• Logic
• Emotions

55. RHETORIC
An art of persuasion
• Legitimacy
• Logic
• Emotions
ARISTOTLE, RHYS, R. W., INGRAM, B., & FRIEDRICH, S. (1954). RHETORIC. NEW YORK:MODERN LIBRARY

56. SPECULATIVE DESIGN:
DESIGNING AN UNCANNY-ENOUGH ARTEFACT
TO TRIGGER THE AUDIENCE REFLECTION
RHETORIC
An art of persuasion
• Emotions
• Legitimacy
• Logic
UNCANNY
• A pecreptual bridge to.
strangeness makes it
probable & legible
• Balance (un)familiarity
(TAKE-AWAY SLIDE)

57. CONCLUSIONS & LIMITATIONS

58. CONCLUSIONS & LIMITATIONS

59. MAX MOLLON
Ph.D. CANDIDATE
INTERACTION DESIGN
RESEARCH BY PRACTICE
SACRe PSL
ENSADLab/ Sociable Media
Telecom ParisTech/ Codesign Lab
ANNIE GENTES
ASSOCIATE PR.
INFORMATION AND
COMMUNICATION SCIENCES
Telecom ParisTech/ Codesign Lab & Media Studies
DESIGN RESEARCH CONFERENCE 2014
UMEÅ, SWEDEN, 2014 JUNE 16-19TH
THE RHETORIC OF DESIGN FOR DEBATE:
TRIGGERING CONVERSATION WITH
AN “UNCANNY ENOUGH” ARTEFACT