1000-word statement

My method of working is located between two different fields. The field of Graphic Design and the field of technology and future forward design. This can range from either speculative design towards experimentation with newer technologies and software. My work tries to provoke thinking beyond the norm. In which keeping a critical eye towards my surroundings and context often leads to speculative based futures and scenarios. Whereby technology plays an important role in my design process and language. I focus myself largely on the digital platform and keep a fascination for the merge of coding and design. I see myself as a Craft Technologist, combining the delicate craft and care taking from a design discipline, and the coding and software development from technology and engineering environments. The Craft technologist is a term coined by Michael Shorter on a reflection from a practice that combines different fields. A saying I can relate to and draws the line between the two fields I am interested in is: "A craft technologist may not draw circuit diagrams or use equations the way an engineer would, but instead learns by doing, making mistakes and being reflective.” (Craft technologist by Michael Shorter)

I use the merge between coding and design to create visual material and outcomes. This because I will always see myself as a designer and not an engineer. The use of coding and software/hardware is only a tool to influence the design process. By playing with a technology it is possible to explore new unthought-of, creative and unexpected uses. By playing you are learning by doing. I am interested in technology as a design partner. I use it’s outcomes as a suggestion to look differently at a certain design or a process. I will work towards a technology’s limitations while also obtaining it’s constant creative possibilities. Within my project I make partly use of generative design. This because the process is not completely autonomous and automatic, yet functions on randomisers within the machine/tool. Which differs from Generative design if we follow it’s precise description. The key element in generative art is the use of an external system to which the artist cedes partial or total control. "Generative art refers to any art practice where the artist uses a system, such as a set of natural language rules, a computer program, a machine, or other procedural invention, which is set into motion with some degree of autonomy contributing to or resulting in a completed work of art”. (Philip Galanter, What is Generative Art?”) But what is an important part in my project is to partially lose control to machinery. The key element in generative art is the use of an external system to which the artist cedes partial or total control.

Differentiating from a key element in Generative Art, functions my tool not as an end-method and are it’s visuals not an completed work of art. The imagery that is produced function as a way to liberate designers in their process and see other possibilities within a design process. As a tool it shows the variety that is possible when working with the different aspects in a design. The possiblities shown can be approached by the usage of detail or whole imagery.

It questions who the designer is and what the function of a designer is. 21st century digital tools and software like photoshop and illustrator often hold similar options, such as filters and modes. But the outcome is never randomised and can always be foreseen and already anticipated upon. It uses the options of a tool rather than extending its possibilities and questioning it’s functions. The designers of today are limited. The modern designers can make use of cybernetica and technics to surpass the limitations of human creativity and open up to possibilities from outside. A craft technologist’s material is technology; they understand its history and will work to a technology's limitations while simultaneously wringing it dry of creative possibilities.(craft technologist).

Nowadays, you see a rise of studios, letting the field of ‘Graphic Design’ ‘behind’ and embracing newer technologies in their process. Contemporary examples range from RNDR, studio Moniker, Richard Vijgen, Jonathan Puckey, Onformative, Feld, etc. You often see that the outcome and process is not set, like historical examples of Graphic Design. Back then, you needed to create an outcome, that was clear before it being realised. Like Typesetting. Contemporary studios that are embracing technology are often starting with an idea that grows in detail over time. Where small experiments will deepen the understanding of a topic and can be used as a finding for a starting point for further iteration. Where sometimes already existing software and hardware can be used. However the strength of this field is to realise which tools are necessary and the possibility arises, after finding out, the tools that are available don’t fit the project, creating new tools that will.

And so the previous obstacles and bridge between engineering and design can be overcome by looking with a Graphic Design crafts eye towards technology.