Some Reflection
U2’s studio practice started ambitiously, embracing a classical position of idealism––commencing a studio practice aiming to evoke the imagination for alternative possibilities of what constitutes eudaimonia––the good, secular life worth pursuing.
My vision of the to-be-challenged status quo consists of the visual and interactional stimuli excess––the practices which strive to please and coddle human’s innate liking of flamboyance and abundance, the easy, the simple, the instant gratification and the sweet, sweet reward. The prevalence of these practices alters algorithms and its influence spreads like plague––attention span and focus encroached, and the threshold for ever more advanced stimulation rises like today’s sea level.
For the sake of studio practice, the brief is made more specific and scalable––to interrogate how digital publication design affects the delivery of its intrinsic message. Two prominent bodies of creative practice offer me a scope to examine how their positions are reflected and deepened through GCD. They are Forensic Architecture and Metahaven.
Forensic Architecture
Forensic Architecture’s (FA) position stands in a clear and firm manner––their purpose is to examine and expose state violence with rigorous forensic process, which is then curated and presented as open source information for everyone with an internet connection.
A subtler evidence of FA’s position is reflected in the use of systematic, concise and rational visual and interactional language, dismantling the correlation between quality graphic communication and capitals, as well as the instigation to consume. Capitals, with resources, power of manipulation and maintenance over the market, the concentration of high quality visual communication are shifting towards their clients, communicating and expressing on behalf of the socio-economically advantaged, of consumerism and capitalism, among the gravity exerted by the free market. GCD practices that are more competitive in the market, are usually well invested with the practitioners’ time and effort, manifested in sleek and bold visuals and interfaces––cleverly balanced upon the thin line between ‘innovative’ and ‘offensive’––become increasingly associated with capitalism.
FA’s visual language, mostly reflected in the UI/UX design and film editing, is no doubt of very high aesthetic standards, with ample investments devoted by FA’s body of practitioners. The imagery and footage embody a neutral grammar of forensic CGI practice consistent throughout the collection, the well-paced and calmly narrated films, the rigorous layout hierarchy narrates a rhetoric of confidence and dignity. All GCD related decisions are made with consideration and restraint––serving the curation and delivery of investigations and evidence, the crucial positional purpose of revealing state violence.
Compared to FA’s overt manifesto of truth and justice, this aspect of its position is perhaps more passive and latent––a position not taken but granted by the general climate of the internet.
Metahaven
Compared to FA, the Amsterdam-based collective’s position is much more challenging to summarise with a tidy 2-liner, judging from the body of works presented by the pair of practitioners under the name Metahaven. In fact, the very definition/categorisation/summary of the collective’s practice finds itself centre to discourses revolving around the collective.
Indeed, Metahaven takes its position by identifying, responding, interrogating and disclosing the widespread dark conditions brought about by the Web 2.0 Era. The challenge of confining Metahaven’s position into a clean-cut definition is therefore comparable to hunting and taming the conditions exerted by the cyberworld’s pervasion––hyper surveillance, exploitation of privacy and data, psychological dependency, jeopardy on disadvantaged communities and further deprivation––the list goes on.
In terms of visual curation, Metahaven is the polar opposite to FA. To resonate in this position, Metahaven orchestrates ‘heavily mediated visual detritus that defines the corporate and government worlds’, frustrating the legibility and interaction. In my opinion this jarringness carries a sense of candour, in comparison to the pleasant, stimulating, friction-free ‘user friendly’ approach employed by the corporate and government worlds themselves.
Moreover, Metahaven’s body of work is hosted on Tumblr, among the rampant flood of shared images, without textual contexts or comments, fusing their responses together with the prompt. The intrinsic message evoked by interrogating from their position is the very medium of interrogation.
This polar comparison also helps reflect and deepen positions: FA’s visual accent of impeccable clarity and rigour concentrates on acute cases of state violence against humanity, whereas Metahaven narrates fables of the chronic conditions of the cyber world today and tomorrow. The positions themselves also reflect a polar opposition, but of the same spectrum––what lies between where we are and human welfare. Both FA and Metahaven’s practice inspire an imagination towards a better life––a position I aspire to take.