 |
 |
Hi Susan and Peter, I am happy to see references to Latour and Harman on this list. A personal favorite is the book that Graham Harman wrote about Latour "The Prince of Networks", the first half of that book is an excellent account of Latour's philosophy. The second half is maybe less exciting since it becomes too philosophically detailed. Bogost is influenced by these thinkers and I agree that he does ask really interesting questions that are relevant to design. I wrote a short review of Harman's book on my blog ( http://transground.blogspot.com/2010/11/book-review-graham-harman-prince-of.html ) Erik *--------------------------------------------------- Erik Stolterman *http://transground.blogspot.com/ <http://www.organizationaldesigncompetence.com/> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Peter Jones | Redesign < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > Susan - Just to follow, I'm an avid reader of Latour's work in scientific > practices - and while he critiqued the social practices in science that > essentially "manufacture facts" his Laboratory Life (and Knorr-Cetina's > Epistemic Cultures) reveal scientific work to be a design and designed > practice. Designers may not recognize this as the case, but many scientists > in fact do see experimental and "hard" science as a design process. > Scientific discoveries are teased out by the intentionality (hypotheses) to > make sense of data. Discoveries are also generative, much as design > discoveries are generated through a wide range of methods. > > All theories are valid if useful structures for interpretation and > explanation. Bogost owes much to Latour, and he acknowledges him throughout > Alien Phenomenology, as well as Harman. Where I see Ian Bogost as "going > beyond" is not theoretically (theories take time to become culturally > relevant so who knows) but physically. "Alien" asks use to envision the > private lives of objects in their invisible and intrinsic relationship to > each other, regardless of agency or human interaction. > > It's much more of an alien and a flatter universe than ANT prefigures, at > least as I've read it. So it seems both radically a-human and yet tangible. > It suggests an ethics of object relations and empathy for things in > themselves. And a responsibility of designers to recognize the new > universes > of objects that may persist in their own relationships without any > intention, user, or prime mover. > > Peter > > Subject: Re: Activity Theory and ANT and computers are capable of design? > > Hi Peter, > > Thanks for this link! I read Bogost's blog with great interest. The points > he makes are completely relevant - it is interesting to see these > conversations popping up in so many contexts. I am not sure, though, that > you are right in suggesting that Bogost's conception ranges far beyond ANT. > He seems right in that territory. Another text that emerged about the same > time as Latour, Law, Callon and Bjiker's work in the late 1980s, that > introduces the kind of playful animism that Bogost is enjoying, is Elaine > Scarry's 'The Body in Pain' (the second half of this book is especially > relevant to design). Verbeek has also written a number of texts that > develop > these lines of thinking. >