Hi David, Terry and all
I have been reading some of the theory behind the 'control' exerted by
design artefacts such as technical drawings recently. As well as control
in the disciplinary sense that David points out, such drawings also
control through governmental means, they assist viewers to modify and
regulate their own conduct in accordance with the interests of the
people issuing the drawings (be that a manager, designer or employer).
Foucault called these 'technologies of sign systems,' using 'technology'
in a wide sense.
David's 'vague penumbra of meanings surrounding these types of drawings'
could be studied as governmentalities, that is, particular types of
discourse that are intended to effect changes in the behaviour of those
who see them.
Warmly
Katherine Hepworth
---
Katherine Hepworth
PhD Candidate
National Institute of Design Research
Swinburne University of Technology
144 High Street Prahran
Victoria 3181 Australia
Telephone 0401 408 804
Facsimilie 03 9521 2665
www.swinburne.edu.au/design
>>> David Sless <[log in to unmask]> 8/26/2010 1:46 PM >>>
On 26/08/2010, at 11:08 AM, Terence Love wrote:
> Just wondering if you would say some more about your thoughts on
'design
> drawings as a means of controlling labour'
I say a bit more about it 'Learning and Visual Communication'. But I can
add a little bit more here.
I should preface what I say by giving some context.
What I know about this by way of first hand knowledge is from living and
working in a highly industrialised part of the UK in the 1960s and
70s—the North East—or Geordieland as we fondly call it. It was also a
deeply depressed part of the UK, in both senses of the word, with about
10% long term unemployment.
The native Geordies used to say that the only man who ever brought full
employment to the area was Adolf Hitler.(though they said it in a much
more melodic and ironic tone than I can write it).
Nonetheless, at that time, if you were fortunate enough to be in full
time work, it was more likely to be down the coal mine, in the shipyard,
in the steelworks, or in some other engineering works or factory. These
were not nice places to work in and most people who worked had their
life affirming interests outside work. There was often a sharp divide
between work and leisure activity, and this was carried over into the
way one dressed for these different activities, and in the symbols and
iconography that surrounded what were highly contrasted worlds: forging
metal and fishing, coal mining and gardening, production line repetitive
tasks and pigeon fancying, making railway tracks and football.
Things like engineering drawings were firmly associated in people's
minds with dangerous, noisy, dirty, repetitive, and unsatisfying world
of work. If they misread a drawing and made a mistake in executing the
instructions in the drawing, they could loose their job or cause their
fellow workers discomfort or death. What I'm suggesting here is that
there was a vague penumbra of meanings surrounding these types of
drawings that were associated with many of the bad things in industrial
society. Alongside that there was also the craft, skill, and pride that
went into manufacturing. This is most evident graphically in the
magnificent drawings in the Art of Engineering exhibition. It was also
palpable at events like ship launches when as many as 5,000 workers
would stand and cheer as a great hulk they had built slowly moved down
the slipway and into the water for the first time.
So these drawings, which mean something very precise and absolutely
control what people did in jobs they did not like, could be viewed with
all the surrounding and contradictory penumbra: a mixture of dislike and
pride.
Imagine with all those meanings available to you, going on weekend
outing (leisure) down to London 'to see the sights and watch a football
match' and stepping into one of the industrial wonders of the age—the
London Underground—to whiAnd then imagine being confronted for the first time by the London
Underground Diagram. You know how to read this type of diagram because
you have seen hundreds like it at work. Only here it does not control
you, but helps you! And it doesn't tell you what to do, but rather tells
you what you can choose to do! Work, pride and play are conjoined in a
new way.
All of the above might be soft fanciful stuff— irony, play, and
pride—but not entirely implausible. And importantly it's a long way
from talking about design as being all about prediction.
War regards from Melbourne and its magical public transport system
(particularly the trams),
David
--
blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog
web: http://www.communication.org.au
Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
CEO • Communication Research Institute •
• helping people communicate with people •
Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
Phone: +61 (0)3 9489 8640
Skype: davidsless
60 Park Street • Fitzroy North • Melbourne • Australia • 3068
|