Quick links

HandCircus

^ Back Home

10

Design Interactions Work in progress show

So I went to the work in progress show of the RCA’s Design Interactions course on Tuesday. There was nothing to interact with.

It was with a certain amount of bewilderment and disappointment that I left the show. I’ve had my eye on the course for a few years as somewhere that has repeatedly produced exceptional work. From Philip Worthington’s Shadow Monsters to Louise Klinker’s Sketch-A-Move. It appeared to be a place that provided a unique environment in which ideas could blossom. The output was varied and interesting, from high-concept works to extremely well executed tactile toys, and it was a course that I’d considered applying to over the next couple of years, a inclination that was reinforced after reading Bill Moggridge’s Designing Interactions book which contains interviews with a number of their alumni.

I’m aware that the course has changed over the past few years but the extent of this change is quite staggering. There is an overwhelming bias toward the highly conceptual aspect of interaction design, to the extent that it falls outside of what I consider interaction design to be and far more within the realms of art. The work on show was more concerned with the impact of biotechnology on society than on the craft of design and as I mentioned above there was nothing there to actually interact with. For me the interaction is something that should be celebrated, and triumphed on a course such as this – the magic that happens when you are able to act upon an object or service and have it react in a meaningful way. At this show I couldnt help but feel that interaction was considered a dirty word and that execution is irrelevant or uninteresting.

For me, a great design in any field comes when three core components are in tune. The first is a thorough understanding of the problem or area that your design is going to tackle. The second is great idea or concept that is able to elegantly address the requirements. The third is a mastery of the form or the craft in order to produce something that is possible, works well and fulfills the ambitions of the idea entirely. From the output of the show it appears that parts one and three have been jettisoned, and part two is being cultivated entirely independently of the others.

Perhaps I’m biased in that my interests lie much more with the core mechanics of interaction, tactile sensation and more tangible forms of design, but from the conversations I heard at the show, I know I’m not the only one disappointed in this change.

«

»

Comments

Yes, the Interaction Design course at the RCA is changing or at least evolving, but so is the world around us. After 15 years of exploring purely electronic and digital media I think it is right to broaden the focus of the department so that students can engage with other technologies beginning to affect our everyday lives, otherwise, as technologies converge over the next decade, interaction designers are in danger of becoming marginalised. Students need to be aware of what is happening in these areas (nano, bio, etc), have strong opinions on them, and know how they are going to get involved (or not). It is important too that they consider not only interactions with technological devices but also how technology is shaping interactions between people and society.

There are in fact many digital and classically interactive pieces in the show. Less than a third of the 30 projects on display deal with biotechnology but they tend to get a lot of the attention. There is definitely less focus on toys and gaming as more students look to contexts beyond entertainment. This is not a rejection of entertainment just a reflection of what this year’s students are interested in. Also, many students are less interested in stand alone interaction and interactive exhibits than exploring interactions with different technologies in relation to everyday life.

But most importantly, it is work in progress and students should be free to experiment, challenge and question the subject they are studying. I’m very happy the work on show is sparking debate, especially on what exactly interaction design is, and where it is going. In my opnion, the field needs more critique and reflection. Two things that keep coming up are whether interaction design as a design approach can be uncoupled from digital and electronic media and technology and applied to other areas, and, if interaction design is a form of digital craft or something more abstract…

I’m the last person who wants to define Interaction Design. I’m sure someone could even easily criticize the definition that Bill Moggridge gives on his book, well supported though from many consistent examples. We can easily argue about the meaning of Interaction, even on which technology has more sense to invest, but I don’t think is harder to argue to the meaning of design. In particular the process in designing. If you, Anthony, fear that your students could get “marginalised”. Maybe is better you make them address more concrete issues in our society. I say again “process”.

I disagree, that is one view of design. There are many different design ideologies each with its own process and ideas about meaning and relevance to everyday life, none of which is more superior than another. It is up to each designer to follow the route that works best for them. The MA course at the RCA is not about teaching design processes, each student is here because they want to push themselves, they will each develop their own design process in response to the challenges they have set themselves.

  • Tony

I’d like first of all thank you Tony for being so nice to reply. It’s clear your perspective as it’s also understandable that a MA shouldn’t be based essentially on teaching, but maybe more on thinking or doing. I still think though, that Interaction Design, or if someone prefers the design of interactive artifacts, is quite a complex discipline. That requires not only technical skills and creativity, but also the ability to analyze how and why people interact in a certain way and what could add meaning to the dialogues between the elements (people, computers, environments). Considering also the absence of consistent Degrees in the field, I don’t think that leaving your students to create their personal process will help them to design something that will leave a mark in the society and thus avoid them to be “marginalised”. Then it’s clear that your it’s an art college, and it’s always nice to come and have a look, but then someone should say to the students “don’t event think to commercialize this!”. Art is subjective, design much less.

Hello. I’m glad that such a discussion has evolved around the show. While I agree that it is important to look at new areas in which the discipline is evolving, I also believe that its important to keep the focus wide and inclusive. If interaction design could be considered as a large body of study including high concept though-provoking work, human factors, toy design, software design, aesthetics, service design etc, the work at the show (in my opinion) only represented a small subset of the subject. While my interests also only include a subset of the subject (entertainment, game design, education, information visualisation/communication) I felt that previously there had been more of an overlap with my interests and the output of the course. My disappointment comes from the fact that this appears to be no longer the case. A course that had appealed to me no longer does. Not to be critical of the work itself, but the areas that the projects on show explore just don’t interest me.

Tony, you mention that this is a reflection of what this year’s students are interested in, but is this not also be a reflection on the leadership of the course and part of the selection process of new students? The nature of the briefs they are given will naturally lead students in certain directions. Were they encouraged to explore more disparate areas?

Of course this is a work-in-progress show and should not be considered as entirely representative of the intended direction of study, so I look forward to seeing how things turn out.

Hello. Handcircus, in their first year the current second years worked on projects we set covering service design, phyiscal computing, biotech (debate), nanotech (futures), and enthnographic methods, they did workshops on programming, electronic prototyoping and film. They also did several projects with industry including France Telecom, BMW and Intel. In their second year they are free to develop their own direction. What is in the show is what they are interested in doing and what they find exciting, this will vary from year to year. Obviously the projects are at an early stage (the show is sooner in the year now than before) and projects will continue to evolve and change. We didn’t select the current second years they applied to the course as it was before, but they seem very happy with the new direction and their projects. The number of applications to the course has increased significantly and we are getting more applications from people who can already do interaction design and build stuff, but who want to spend some time somewhere where they will be challenged and pushed, especially intellectually. We are also getting lots from people who have little or no experience and want to explore how they can engage with technology in a way that works fro them. All I can say is that natuarally the course will not appeal to everyone, it never has (I have been involved in one way or another since 1992). There are more Interaction Design courses in the world today and even within the RCA other departments are dealing with stuff that was unique to CRD 5 or 6 years ago.

[...] handcircus » Blog Archive » Design Interactions Work in progress show Not to say “I told you so” but some interesting insights in the downfall of interaction design on an academic level. (tags: RCA design interaction) [...]

[...] handcircus » Blog Archive » Design Interactions Work in progress show Shitstorm part 2 on interaction design 2.0… A comment by Tony Dunne no less, i think Regine tipped him off : ) (tags: interaction design critique) [...]

[...] Interesting how this all started with a simple email conversation with Régine talking about some conversations I was having with ex-students and observers in London about the Interim show at the RCA and then WHAM… everything explodes… she writes no less than 3 posts about the show and a whole vibrant and slightly aggressive conversation starts on her posts, Handcircus and here on a post 3 months old. [...]

[...] handcircus » Blog Archive » Design Interactions Work in progress show Criticism of the latest RCA summer show: “The work on show was more concerned with the impact of biotechnology on society than on the craft of design […] there was nothing there to actually interact with.” (tags: interaction design interactiondesign criticism education RCA) [...]

Leave a Comment

Your email is never shared.