Make technical objects yours by hugodistefano

MAKE TECHNICAL

OBJECTS YOURS

Cover picture Chaos I by Jean Tinguely 1972

make technical objects yours

Hugo DI STEFANO mars 2014 P么le sup茅rieur de design - Villefontaine

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 01 - THE TECHNIQUE

PART OF HUMAN EXISTENCE TECHNICAL REVOLUTION IMPACT AMBIGUITY

02 - OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH TECHNICAL OBJECTS USEFUL OBJECT RELATIONSHIP EMANCIPATION

03 - EMANCIPATION CONDITIONS

SELECTED TECHNOLOGY SENTIMENTAL VALUE MOVE FROM TECHNICAL INFORMATION TO TECHNICAL CULTURE

04 - TO MAKE IT YOURS

17 17 18

23 23 24

29 29 30

TO GET OR TO MAKE IT YOURS? TRANSFORMING A “TO MAKE IT YOURS” OBJECT.

35 35

CONCLUSION

INTRODUCTION

Technical objects are part of people’s everyday life. Every day they use and handle them that mean they have physical and cognitive interaction with them. However they have basic interaction, based on a utilitarian relationship, with products which have complex functioning. Why are they not able to repair a simple desktop printer which breaks down? The internal working of technological products became so complex and mysterious that users cannot expect to understand them. So users have no choice but to consume them. This basic relationship between user and technical products is rather a paradox because, unlike the collective psyche, machines cannot become autonomous: they need humans to exist, be maintained and repaired. However you definitely are dependent on technical products. The physical aspect, designed by industrial designer, and the intuitive user interface, designed by web designer, make the product less understandable for user because he/she does not have to care about how the product workings. There are some movements like “Makers” or “DIY” (=Do It Yourself) which claim user independence from technical objects. User’s involvement in object production could,

make technical objects yours

according to those movements, implies a deeper relationship between user and technical object. How could there be solutions to make technology more familiar? How could they be independent from Technique in the aim of becoming autonomous? And how could they demystify it and make technical and technological products? First this is important to define the “Technique”, its origin and its relation with humans so as to explain our current relationship with technical products in a better way. Then, I will show the conditions to improve this relationship and finally I will talk about the “make it yours” process.

01 THE TECHNIQUE

make technical objects yours

PART OF HUMAN EXISTENCE According to Henri Bergson, Technique is linked to human evolution. This would be what defines human because it makes us different from animals. As a result, Human would be a “technical animal1” because he is able to use tools. Bertrand Gille explains there are three levels of Technique. First, there is “basic technique” which exists for basic tasks (for example the tool). The second level is the “technical group” which is composed of several basic techniques. For example, blast furnace technical, which is used for iron manufacturing, includes several “basic technique”. The last level is called “technical field” which is composed of several “technical groups2”. This last combination enables producing industrials objects. To sum up, there are lots of different kinds of technique, either simple or complex.

1. BERGSON Henri, L’évolution créatrice, quoted in the show Philosophie Arte : La Technique, with Caterina Zanfi, 2010

2. GILLE Bertrand, Histoire des techniques, quoted in the book of VIAL Stéphane, L’être et l’écran, éd. Puf, hors collection, 2013, p.33-34

TECHNICAL REVOLUTION IMPACT In the field of product production, today industrial production is opposed to handmade production. In general, “craftsman” means someone who is competent to use a special technique (one talks about craftsman’s

THE TECHNIQUE

3. CRAWFORD Matthew B., Eloge du carburateur, éd. La Découverte, coll. La Découverte, 2010, p.50

4. VIAL Stéphane, L’être et l’écran, op. cit, p.40

“know-how”). However, the industrial revolution of the end of the 19th century changed relations between craftsmen and the technique, in particular with the emergence of machines. The craftsman, who used to make handmade work, had to delegate his/her how-know to machine. According to Matthew Crawford, the main consequence of this industrial revolution, particularly with the invention of the assemblylines, is the separation of “How” from “Know”3. While craftsmen own both, the industrial revolution has broken that and since this revolution, engineers have owned the “Know” and workers have owned the “How”. Some craftsmen became simple workers who had to do work without any meaning. AMBIGUITY In 1812 in England, some craftsmen revolted against machines because they were fearful of them. They feared that machines would take their place because they assigned machines to real humans. For Stéphane Vial4, one is scared of the machine because one sees it like an abstract human who is able to be independent and able to take decisions without real

make technical objects yours

humans. It is similar to the myth of Frankenstein, in which humans lose control of what they made. Gilbert Simondon explains that humans are scared of technology because there is a separation between the culture and the technology, which is evolving faster than the culture. To avoid this technophobia, a “technical culture5” would be necessary. However, some people see technology as an absolute answer to every problem and they are called “techno-optimistic”. For example, Kevin Warwick, who is a cybernetic professor in England, said that the next level of human evolution will be the fusion between humans and machines. According to him, this next level is inevitable and necessary because human will be the only one to handle his/her evolution: “Better become a machine than be dominated by it. Human cannot win against machine, so we have to become as strong as it6”, said Warwick. Nevertheless, as Jacques Ellul explains, every technical progress has some consequence7. For example the internet permits a kind of liberty but also allows a kind of control.

THE TECHNIQUE

5. SIMONDON Gilbert, Du mode d’existence des objets techniques (1958), éd. Aubier, coll. Philosophie, 2001, p.82

6. Speech of WARWICK Kevin, quoted in the show of ZAHITEN Christopher, Le cyborg ou l’avènement de l’homme-machine, 2006 7. ELLUL Jacques, Le bluff technologique, quoted in the speech of VITALIS André, Jacques Ellul et le bluff technologique

02 OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH TECHNICAL OBJECTS

make technical objects yours

USEFUL OBJECT First it is important to understand what a technical object is. Jacques Ellul explains that a technical object is by definition a useful object, for example tools are technical objects. The technical object makes our relation to the world a utilitarian one because it allows us to build, shape and transforms nature. However for Simondon, this “useful” aspect is just a primary and basic relation1 because one uses the object just for his utility, which becomes the only aim for users. For example if my computer does not work anymore, I will not keep it because a technical object has to work and if it does not, it becomes useless. However there are other kinds of relationships that we have with technical objects.

1. SIMONDON Gilbert, Du mode d’existence des objets techniques, op. cit., p.85

RELATIONSHIP As I explained before, there are two types of status for humans who use technical and technological objects: fascination, which is blind technophily, and fear, which is easy technophobia2. As Stéphane Vial says, those two opposite statuses exist because technology allows us to access new perceptions of the world. It is why in

OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH TECHNICAL OBJECTS

2. VIAL Stéphane, L’être et l’écran, op. cit, p.24-25

3. SÉRIS Jean-Pierre, La technique, quoted in the book of VIAL Stéphane, L’être et l’écran, op. cit, p.60

4. DAGONET François, Éloge de l’objet : Pour une philosophie de la marchandise, quoted in the book of VIAL Stéphane, L’être et l’écran, op. cit, p.61 5. SIMONDON Gilbert, Du mode d’existence des objets techniques, op. cit., p.46-47

the collective mind we consider new technologies as magic or science-fiction. To Jean-Pierre Séris, we see technology like that because there are two opposite sides in it: it has a complex functioning but is easy-to-use3. This creates a superficial relationship between human and technologies. Even if technologies are not “understandable”, human and technical objects are very closely and deeply interrelated. We are dependent on them but they also need us. For François Dagonet, without technical objects we are “powerless” because a human is physically limited and uses them to improve himself/herself4. However they also needed us because, as Simondon said, a human has to intervene to maintain them in life5 (for example while repairing them). EMANCIPATION Some people say that we have to become free from technical objects because we are too dependent on them. But this freedom, or this emancipation, has two meanings. First there is the freedom related to the way to use them. Indeed, technology is complicated this is a fact. But

make technical objects yours

designers and engineers create “intuitiveness” which allows anyone to easily use technologies. However, as Matthew Crawford says, intuitiveness is a superficial emancipation because if the technological object does not work anymore we still are dependent on someone able to repair it6. Intuitiveness became an obstacle between users and the way we can understand how the technologies work. To Simondon’s mind, real emancipation is when someone has “technical culture”. The user become the owner but also the person able to take care of his/her object7. To be able to understand technologies, this is the real way to become independent from them. Without this technical culture, we have no choice but to consume. For example, planned obsolescence, which is the practice of voluntarily limiting a product’s lifespan, existing because we do not know everything about how technical products work. So we cannot repair them.

OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH TECHNICAL OBJECTS

6. CRAWFORD Matthew B., Eloge du carburateur, op. cit., p.74

7. SIMONDON Gilbert, Du mode d’existence des objets techniques, op. cit., p.252

03 EMANCIPATION CONDITIONS

make technical objects yours

SELECTED TECHNOLOGY If we want to be more independent from technologies, this is important to make the difference between two types of technologies: political technology and social technology. The first type is when politics imposed some technologies for economical reason. However, when Chris Anderson says that the most important transformation is not in “the way to do it” but “the person who does it1”, he defends a social technology. Social technology is a chosen technology. In other words, Chris Anderson said that the “Do it yourself” and auto-production are the best way to consume because he thinks that final user is the best placed to produce an object. With this way of producing, the user would be able to better understand what he/she consumes. Some people try to make it real; “Fablabs” for example are places where you can produce your own objects. The Fablab’s aim is to demystify machines to let people to make objects.

1. ANDERSON Chris, Makers : La nouvelle révolution industrielle, éd. Pearson, coll. Les temps changent, 2012, p. 22

SENTIMENTAL VALUE This way of “selected technology” would let our relation with consuming technical products change. For the moment, the complexity

EMANCIPATION CONDITIONS

2. KAPLAN Frédéric, La métamorphose des objets, FYP éd., coll. Présence, 2012, p.23

of technology cannot let to have a relationship based on something more than utility. As Frédéric Kaplan says, electronic products have no “historical capacity2”, in other words, we cannot attach sentimental importance to them. Indeed we attach more importance to computer’s content than the computer itself. To him, these products have just a monetary value. Taking care of something is the sign that you are attached to it, so if you were able to understand and repair your computer, you could build a deeper relationship with it. MOVE FROM TECHNICAL INFORMATION TO TECHNICAL CULTURE

3. WINNER Langdon, La baleine et le réacteur, 2002, quoted in the article of DELEAGE Jean-Paul, Philosophie, la baleine et le réacteur, 2003

Matthew Crawford explains that people have been unaware of technical object since the industrial revolution of the 19th century. We are now in an immaterial society based on accumulation of information but there is confusion between information and culture because, as Lagdon Winner explains, some experts think that information is knowledge3. In other words to have access to some information about a topic does not mean that you have any kind of knowledge about it. To Crawford, one is dependent on technical objects because one does

make technical objects yours

not know everything about them. One just has information about it. It is why the immaterial society caused our ignorance of the technical world. Technical culture could be the way to create a society based on something else than information. If Gilbert Simondon talks about “minority status” when someone uses a technical object just for his usability, he also talks about “major status4” when the person has a cognitive relation with it. For example a mechanic has cognitive relation with cars because he/she is able to understand and repair them. He/she does not know everything about them, because he/she does not create them, but he/she is able to make it his/her own to repair it. To make a technical object yours could be the middle way between the minority status only based on usability and major status based on absolute knowledge.

EMANCIPATION CONDITIONS

4. SIMONDON Gilbert, Du mode d’existence des objets techniques, op. cit., p.85

04 TO MAKE IT YOURS

make technical objects yours

TO GET OR TO MAKE IT YOURS? First this is important to make the difference between “to get” and “to make it yours”. “To get” is the process to take the propriety of an object. For example when you are buying something, the money transaction symbolizes that you are taking possession of it. It is now your propriety. However “to make it yours” means there is a lack of personal propriety. In fact, “to make it yours” is a kind of “get” for a second time but on another level: on the personal level. When you buy a second-hand object, you get the propriety of the object but you do not get the “history” of the old user. So you have to build a new “personal history” with it. According to Gaston Bachelard, you make a place yours while living in because the place becomes living by your memories and your personal history1. The place has become transformed and personal to you and your furniture is just physical materialization of your memories.

1. BACHELARD Gaston, La poétique de l’espace (1957), éd. Puf, coll. Quadrige Grands textes, 2009

TRANSFORMING Even if you can make it yours a lot of objects, this process is still complicated with technical objects due to our basic relation which

TO MAKE IT YOURS

I described earlier. First, “making it yours” has to be a personal process. For example, the artist Marcel Duchamp transformed some industrial products, like a chair or a bike, to create sculpture. His works talk about how can you make an industrial product, which is by definition a standard, yours. As a result, Duchamp alters industrial objects’ structure to rebuild it in a more personal object. He is a kind of hacker because when he makes something his, the utilitarian relation with object disappears to become a kind of fascination object, as hackers with computers. As a result, Duchamp’s works talk about how transforming a “finished” product to make it personal and to create a sentimental value in it. A “TO MAKE IT YOURS” OBJECT As I said, most of the time industrial product is standardized. So you cannot really make it yours because the object is “finished” and ready to use. So, some people invented a way to bypass that. For example “Sugru” is a self-setting rubber for fixing, modifying and improving stuff. With that you can make a product more personal while improving ergonomic aspect of it

make technical objects yours

for example. As a result, you can make a product standardized yours. However, for technology objects it is a little bit more complicated. To make it yours, you have first to understand it, to understand how it works to know where you can occur in. The intelligibility of technical objects is the core of the problem. Some designers work on this object aspect. For example, Benjamin Mazoin creatd a product called “Objectomie’. His aim was to make little electrical household, like column mixer, more understandable for users. To do it, he treated the object like a human being. Every part of his object represented a kind of organ. So you can easily identify them and understand the aim of each “organs”. As a result, if a part doesn’t work anymore, you can change it. As a result, your object can be improved and evolves with all technical evolution.

TO MAKE IT YOURS

CONCLUSION

1. SIMONDON Gilbert, Du mode d’existence des objets techniques, op. cit., p325-326

The Technology evolves so fast that it has become really difficult to take the time to understand it. But understanding technical and technological products would allow us to have a different relationship with them, based on something more than utility. It is why this is important to work on intelligibility of products which allows users to understand better what they consume. If a technological product is understandable, you become able to take care of it, to repair it and to be attached to it. Using technological products would become more responsible. It also permits us to become more independent from technology. Gilbert Simondon called the intelligibility aspect of a product with these words: “open product” which is the opposite of a “closed product1”. According to him, opening products is the core of the technical culture which could allow you to make a technical product yours. If you were able to make technological products yours, they could also be more personal and less standardized.

make technical objects yours

BIBLIOGRAPHY ANDERSON Chris, Makers : La nouvelle révolution industrielle, éd. Pearson, coll. Les temps changent, 2012 BACHELARD Gaston, La poétique de l’espace (1957), éd. Puf, coll. Quadrige Grands textes, 2009 CRAWFORD Matthew B., Eloge du carburateur, éd. La Découverte, coll. La Découverte, 2010 KAPLAN Frédéric, La métamorphose des objets, FYP éd., coll. Présence, 2012 SIMONDON Gilbert, Du mode d’existence des objets techniques (1958), éd. Aubier, coll. Philosophie, 2001 VIAL Stéphane, L’être et l’écran, éd. Puf, hors collection, 2013

WEBOGRAPHY DELEAGE Jean-Paul, Philosophie, la baleine et le réacteur, 2003, online : http://www.cairn.info/revue-ecologie-et-politique2003-1-page-247.htm Conférence de VITALIS André, Jacques Ellul et le bluff technologique, online : http://www.enssib.fr/bibliotheque-numerique/ ecouter/48108-jacques-ellul-et-le-bluff-technologique

make technical objects yours

FILMOGRAPHY

Philosophy

Philosophie Arte : La Technique, avec Caterina Zanfi, 2010, online : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaGf2Z6xB9M

Show

DE MIGUEL WESSENDORF Karin, Moins c’est mieux, 2013, online : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zRGyGJQFAE ZAHITEN Christopher, Le cyborg ou l’avènement de l’homme-machine, 2006, online : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohob7HtneoY