Category: What and who is it for?

I’m presenting a paper at a 17th Biennial Conference of Asian Studies Associations of Australia (ASAA). It at Albert Park Hotel, in St Kilda, Melbourne.

In this paper I will discuss about the earliest project in the beginning of my PhD, the Online Forum and www.malaysianidentity.com is the case study of this paper. As my PhD is a practice-based design research project, it is challenging to explain it to the non-design background what is design research and what is practice-based research. Here’s the abstract of my paper. If you interested to read the whole paper, please do email me.

Can an online discussion be used as a new research practice? A case study www.malaysianidentity.com

Nurul Rahman

With the rise of web 2.0, and collaborative web sites and communication platforms, there is the temptation and the possibility of utilising innovative technology for research methods and practices.

As part of a practice-based design PhD research project, I used an online discussion forum as an environment to enable focus group discussions. The aim was to gather together a selection of research participants (artists and designers) involved in creative fields, to start a conversation, and explore ideas about, Malaysian identity and its representations within cultural artifacts. I facilitated this discussion, exploring particular topics; and through the use of open-ended questions and threads within the forum, encouraged participants to present their ideas and engage with others.

This paper will discuss how an online tool can be used within a research project to experiment and confront ideas, to find new directions for investigation or to have a general discussion about a specific subject with research participants who are located in diverse international locations, asynchronously.

The forum malaysianidentity.com will be used as a case study to explore the advantages and challenges such a solution may present.

Full paper

Can online discussion be used as a new research practices? by Nurul Rahman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.

Talking to Yoko about my research always helped me in putting my puzzle together. Yoko asked me to visualized my research using a metaphorical methods. Because Im still researching and not so sure weather the words Im using is what Im really mean,
Yoko suggested me to either leave it blank or give it a name. Leaving it blank is not very easy for me as ˜blank for me means nothing, and it will confuse me later on. So this is how I decided to do it taking on board what Yoko suggested me to try on. I will use the metaphorical idea of ˜cake. Before I continue this idea of cake, I would like to define some parts in my research that I will relates with using the metaphorical of ˜cake.

What are my key questions in my research?

My research interested in the contributions of design, particularly communication design and it close relations to the constructions of national and cultural identity. Although, both national and cultural identity are two different things but both connected to each other closely. Without one, the other will not mean anything. Thinking what comes first in identity is like thinking what came first in chicken and eggs. Both inform each other constantly. This leads to the question Quest-ce quune nation? What is the nation? Apa itu bangsa? And the next question narrowing it down to subject in my research is about Malaysia which what Im searching for What makes the nation? ˜Apa yang membentuk bangsa?.

Now, I have to admit, these questions is really broad and it is the on going questions that most of the researcher in sociology, anthropologies, media and cultural studies, history etc. have asked in their research until now. My research although it relates very much to the questions that Ive asked before, it is also relates to communication design. In fact my PhD is focusing on the roles of design, particularly communication design in the construction of national and cultural identity. I argued that communication design play a significant roles in the shaping of national and cultural identity. Clearly it is quite obvious but there is not much written about it, the involvement of communication design in the constructions of national and cultural identity, particularly south east asia, such as Malaysia. Which areas in design or what medium in design that Im focusing in is a good questions. And how it contributed, through what medium and what makes it is a strong argument is what Im still investigating.

Back to the attempt of using a metaphorical ways of looking at my research questions ˜What makes the nation? ˜What are the ingredients that shape Malaysian identity, nationally and culturally?. If ˜cake is the Malaysian identity, then what is the ingredient of making that ˜cake? Why is that this cake is claimed uniquely Malaysian? I think what Im doing is questioning the idea of uniqueness in Malaysian identity. Why did Malaysian think that Malaysia is unique? Or not.

If I argued the Malaysian Identity is not unique, because what makes Malaysian Identity is similar to what makes any other countries such as the different in of culture, custom, cuisine, etc. then what is it then? What makes the people (Malaysian) believe that their nation is unique? Theres a lot more in unique than different. Indeed, each nation is different in some ways, lifestyle and culture but is it unique? Is it by using the word unique are strategies to a nation building, or as a way to promote the country? In fact is it part of the country branding to create a belief that the country is special? This is interesting, focusing on the words unique, what are the relation between branding and the nation building?

Unique = being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else, particularly remarkable, special, or unusual.

Is Malaysian unusual? Lets have a look at what different mean?

Different – not the same as another or each other; unlike in nature, form, or quality ; distinct; separate

Therefore it is no longer unique, but it does have ˜________ that somehow makes Malaysian different, that distinguish Malaysia from others, that relates Malaysia to something, could be an object, could be material or immaterial (Dewey pp.? 1938 “ refer to Margolin Experience as a product). What are the relationship between the product and the person, and how it creates the notion of national/cultural identity? What makes a person feel the connection between self and identity? How does the graphic design contribute in the construction of it?

When we want to start a conversation, there’s always ‘something’ that we use as a ‘vehicle’ to communicate. This ‘vehicle’ could be anything, an object, weather, people, feeling, history, memories etc. Indeed we talk/negotiate through shared ‘object’, but I’m not convince that object can do our talking for us. Object or material can inform others about us, or relates others to us but might not give the correct meaning about us. As the ‘vehicle’ of communication could be anything, one might have different meaning to each others for various reason. Take an example of a french words, that been adopted in English. Some of words has been used in different context and been given different connotation.

When we write, and sometimes we not familiar with language of others we write as how we think. We might think in our native language and write in other language. Sometimes, some word does not give enough meaning in one language so we use the language that have the meaning we one or that could bring deeper meaning of what we wanted to say.

For example, ‘Buah Hati, Intan Payung’ in Malay language is use to describe a very special person. One could call someone ‘buah hati’ and ‘intan payung’ to show the meaning without saying you’re special. The connotation behind it, is much more that the meaning itself. For me, it relates to the Malay culture, it will take me back to my childhood time where my grandmother use to call me (not now because it is use a lot to call children than adult) and it also will connect to nostalgic memories of old movies. The words itself have much more meaning than the meaning it shows.

But…can a nation be identify through their language? I remembered a scene where I was on the way to level 20 with the lift. There 6 of us waiting in front of the lift and I can’t distinguish the nationality any of us just by looking at physical, we all look the same, all asian. When the lift arrived and we enter, one of the girl start talking in a language that sound very familiar to me but at the same time it sound kind of different in some words, my guess it’s Indonesian. I immediately get connected without knowing the girl. I get informed where the country this girl might come from. Through language, with some knowledge, I received an information. If I talk back, I will be informing the girl about my self.

Very similar situation to the use of visual/images, the connotation of visual elements give deeper meaning, than what we see on the visual surface. Uniqueness is not only in the language, it also in visual, memory, nostalgia, elements, and representations. I have to say clearly here that I don’t see uniqueness in the same meaning as special. I see uniqueness to show typical or singularity, or perhaps a kind of information. It give a sense of connection to ‘something’. It could be one of the ‘vehicle’ to communicate to others. People relates to it and find them connected in it, that ‘something’ bring people together. It doesn’t mean that they special, it is just the sense of belonging.

“Malaysian student always get together, they like to get united”.

Is it mean Malaysian people are unique and different? I meet Mary from Adelaide in School of Applied Comm. GRC, and had a casual chat with her along with few of my friend. She mentioned about a research student of her in Flinders University and the student is someone I know. I asked her to send the student of her my regards. Then Mary say, this is very common, always she said that Malaysian student always get together and get united. She added that is it Malaysian attitude. I guess having Malaysian around her at the chat might convinced her thought and idea about Malaysian. Somehow in relation to this conversation we had, Marry have created an image of Malaysia through her small finding. Is it true that Malaysian like to get united and be together? Can this add in the uniqueness? How the idea of ‘united’ come? Is it stereotyping or just a claim? What inform Mary? The student behavior, her connections with her student, or others?

Like any other international student, or anyone whose being far from their home/country, when ever we get to know someone from our ‘home’, the memories and the visual that relates to ‘home’ appear. It somehow reduce the ‘homesickness’ or get in the comfort zon. We start a conversation with/through ‘home’ and even start automatically, speaking the ‘language’ we speak at ‘home’. We even sometime use some vernacular because it easier and understandable, or to get more information about the person (it’s a way to detect in which city the person comes from, as each city have different vernacular). Another reason could be language, culture and custom. Perhaps it’s easier to talk to Malaysian as being Malaysia, then to communicate to others.

Malaysian-united is the most interesting words I think. What create this image? Is it the ‘Malaysian Truly Asia’ adds that goes around the world promoting Malaysia give the ideas of united? Does the idea of united adding values to the notion of uniqueness? Or is it the Malaysian student behavior that create this image, or both? One might inform another or one might stabilize the other information. In a way, the image of Malaysia is created, through the representation of its nation, the visual representations, and the rhetoric of language. ‘Object’ or ‘something’ connected and informed people about something. It says things or talk to (as what Neal would say). But it also have more than that, these ‘something’ is also capable to give impact to others by changing their perceptions, depending how deep the information they have about it.

Coming back to the image that been created just by few information, or stereotyping the image, it is not really about ‘something’, it’s a reason to start a ‘something’, in this context a conversation. One want to get connected to others, therefore having a small information about the others, that could be ‘something’, would be a reason to be accepted by others, or would give meaning that one have a knowledge about others.

I’m not sure if I’m on the track or off track but I will let it float in you mind for a while..I think I’ll stop here. Back to you…and here’s are what I think we should be focusing at in our discussion from my side.

The questions you wrote in you blog is a good start..

Am I Investigating about :

The roles of communication designer in shaping Malaysian NCID? (action/behavior/practice/experience)

or

The roles of communication design materials in shaping Malaysian NCID? (impact of design/product/object/element)

The object/impact or the practice? I think it’s the practice that I’m after for now.

Another important questions that would be interesting to discuss is:

What is the different between communication design and graphic design?

Now, seriously back to you Neal…

copyright by Nurul Rahman2008

This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.

I had a discussion with Laurene today. As usual, this meeting starts with an explanation of what Ive been doing in my research. I line up things like reading the deconstructions theory from Derridas, essay of deconstruction in graphic design from Lupton and Miller, and work of deconstructionist such as Katherine Mc Coy, students of Academy of Arts and California Arts School. Then I show her my outcome from my readings, the poster I made out of my respond to the deconstructions idea and from my cultural understanding and experiences.

I then moved on to another project that Ive been working on which are the women magazine cover and the printed advertisements. Honestly, I been spending more time on the women magazine rather than spending time on the other part. I started with the printed advertisement but then left it on a side and started the analyzing the women magazine cover. For this analyzing methods I read again and again essays, papers or articles that have relation to Barthes theory on sign, signifier and signified. I want to understand how to analyze the meaning behind the printed material and the visual representation of it. I read Hall, S. papers and books on visual and cultural representations; I also did touch on Foucaults ideas on identity (See David Gaunlett 1998). It all seems like a patch works of my research. I also try to be friend with Babha, H. and some of the post colonialisms author, hoping to get deeper understanding and more familiar with the issues of nation and its relation in my research.

It started with this important question.

What are the differences between what is Malaysian and what is uniquely Malaysian?

What I need to do:

1. Look for British Vogue magazine and compare the cover design with the Malaysian Womens Magazine. (Anyone knows where to start?)
2. Make a diagram to trace/create narrative of my searching of Malaysian uniquely identity.
3. List down in anyways list of the things, or could be anything that is Malaysian to me.

Any thought on this?

Every now and then, I’ll always come back to this blog to throw out some ideas. I’ve been doing a lots of reading, sometimes I understand what I read and other times it all seems vague to me. Of course no doubt they’re all interesting to read, regardless whether I could understand or not what the author tried to say. There’s few particularly who caught my attention. Stuart Hall, on cultural representation and meaning, is one of the very interesting readings at this time for me. The theories of representation and approaches explaining “how representation of meaning through language works” interest me very much. Questions like “Where do meaning comes from?” and “How can we tell the ‘true’ meaning of word and image?” take my thought away for a while.

The interesting parts of this is not so much about the object. It’s about the meaning and the representation of the meaning itself. Did you ever go out of your own ‘world’?. Our meaning of world are very subjective, depending on where we come from, experiences we have, and education we get. My meaning and understanding of world is so much different now than ten years ago. I spent 27 years in Malaysia and half of my age in Penang. That’s my world. People, culture, languages, food, religions and the way of life are part of my world. I’m not saying that we are not connected to other world. We watch TV’s, listen to radio, we have overseas magazines and books, we watch movies at the cinema, etc. All this doesn’t really give much meaning to me. It’s stereotyping my meaning of other world if I could say that. I would look at others that are not part of my world as western world.

Until I travelled far, far out of my ‘world’ and tried to get to the other world then this particular meaning of other ‘stereotype world’, in my contexts is the western world started to change. Meaning comes with the experiences and understanding of the cultural practices behind it. It’s not only what you see visually but also the meaning behind it. I saw and read many overseas materials when I was in Malaysia. I imagined many different situations with it. But imagination is unlimited. It has led me to a dreamland. Until I feel, experience and taste it myself then it will become reality. Then the meaning changes. Perceptions and information exchange. How far can meaning and perceptions go with certain information? To what extend until it stops and gives another meanings? My meanings of the western world have changed through my feel, look, experiences and way of life.

It’s really interesting to look back a the history of Graphic design in Deconstruction. Sadly in my undergraduate, we did not covers any of this areas, yet we covers most of History of Fine Arts. Perhaps most of our lectures at that time are from the Fine Arts education background. I wonder, if we learn the history of Graphic Design as part of our curriculum in our undergraduates, will it change our design practices and thinking on Graphic design back in Malaysia? Hmmm…

Continuing on my process of understanding about deconstruction I came to understand that Jacques Derrida’s (a French philosopher) theories seems to be the backbones of the deconstruction process in design and architecture. ‘There’s nothing outside of the text’ (Derrida). He suggest the way the language depends on the play of differences between one word and another, while meaning itself is always deferred. The purpose of such devices was to prevent conceptual closure, or reduction of his texts to an ultimate meaning. All these ideas can be seen at work in post-modern Graphic Design and Derridean concepts such as ‘sous rature’ – the tactic of putting an idea under erasure’ by crossing it out, in order to alert the reader not to accept it at face value – have found their ways to into graphic practices. (Poynor 47:2002)

Here are some designers and authors ideas on deconstruction.

This is how deconstruction arrived in graphic Design. It started through Architecture – during MoMa ( Museum of Modern Arts) which was held an exhibition in 1988 and its catalog that probably did the most to introduce deconstruction to Graphic Designers. The exhibition curated by Philip Johnson with the assistance of Mark Wigley. What distinguished and linked their work argued Wigley, was a sensibility in which ‘the dream of pure form has been disturbed. Form has become contaminated’. Deconstructive architecture he explained does not dismantle buildings, rather it locates the inherent dilemmas within them, exposing the ‘symptoms of a impurity’. (Johnson & Wigley 10:1988)

The process of deconstructions in Graphic Design evolved in late 80’s to late 90’s. There are few discourses about the interpretations of the action taken of deconstruction in Graphic Design practices. Design Historian – Philip Meggs in ‘Deconstructing Typography’ 1990, defines deconstruction as ‘taking the integrated whole apart, or destroying the underlying order that holds a graphic design together. In the same year two graphic designers, Chuck Bryne and Martha Witte, published their definition on deconstruction in design on more critically aware sense of deconstuction’s root in theory. For Bryne and Witte the word refers to the breaking down something in order to ‘decode’ its parts in such a way that these act as ‘informers’ on the thing, or any assumptions or convictions we have regarding it. Their emphasis on deconstruction is simply taking things apart in the hope to make form and giving a new look in print media.

From my readings, I found that there’s two school of practices on deconstruction of Graphic Design, Cranbrook Academy of Art and California Institute of Arts (CalArt). Mc Coys (Katherine and Michael) describe the uses of theory at th academy as
“The emerging ideas emphasized the construction of meaning between the audience and the graphic design piece, a visual transaction that parallels verbal communication. Building on the linguistic theories of semantics but rejecting the faith in scientifically predictable transmission of meaning, these ideas began to have an impact on the students’ graphic work. (Cranbrook Arts Students’ Work, 1978)”

In a poster for Cranbrook graduate programme 1989, Katherine Mc Coy had used a series of Derridean oppositions theory – art/science, mythology/technology, purist/pruralist, vernacular/classic to structure the opposition around the spine.

.

Jeffery Keedy – Fast Forward book spread, California Institutes of Arts, USA (1993)

‘We want to talk about graphic through our own medium – to articulate our own reflections graphically. Not as cultural theoreticians who have no clue about Font. ‘ – Manuel Krebs

Elliott Earls – Typeface Family Poster (1995)

For those that facing difficulties to view my discussion outline poster, I hope at this moment, you will manage to view it through this blog.

If you don’t please do let me know..

This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.

1. Can an online discussion be used as a new research practice?

Searchers, to communicate findings between research centers, research and development departments, and universities, developed Internet. With the rise of web 2.0, and collaborative web sites, the temptation is great to make use of these innovative technologies as tools in new research patterns and practices.

As part of a practice-based PhD research, the author used an online discussion forum to gather a selection of designers, artists and people involved in creative areas, to start a discourse and confront ideas about Malaysian identity. As both participant and facilitator, the author proposed the participants to further discuss on specific topics related to her research to broaden her reflection.

This paper aims to explain how an online tool can be used, for a research perspective, to experiment and confront ideas, to find new directions of investigation or to have a general opinion on a specific subject.

The forum malaysianidentity.com will be used as a case study to explore the advantages and challenges such a solution may present.

Abstract proposal for ASAA conference in Melbourne, June 2008

2. Looking behind the print from Graphic Designers eyes

Throughout history, the field of graphic design has evolved often in direct relation to evolving technologies. For example there has been the transition from hand-drawn to computerized illustration method, the use of digital or still images, new types of font systems, techniques for animation all of which, have evolved the craft and outcomes of this field of design.

This proposed paper is based in research that has emerged from a practice-based research project which is investigating the Graphic Designers contribution in shaping national identity. Based on Malaysias 50 years of independence as a case study, this research concentrates on cultural artefacts, mostly printed material, such as magazine and newspaper advertisements; and traces this contribution to Malaysian identity.

With that framework in mind, this paper will examine how printed material can reveal the evolution of the designers work with a particular focus on the evolution of printing processes and technologies in shaping and directing new styles and methods of communication. This paper aims to compare the design and printing techniques use in the practice of creating advertisement within that period.

Consequently, it will provide a visual analysis using the selected advertisements that will facilitate this discussion of the designers work.

To conclude, this paper will question the meaning behind the use of these technologies in the production of advertisements, and its relation to the economic status and perceptions of national identity.

Abstract proposal for SHOT meeting in Lisbon, October 2008

I found these dialogue in one of Heller’s book (Design Dialogue) and it’s sort of give me an inspiration while reading it. I thought would be nice to share it although it might not mean as much as it mean to me.

This is the dialogue between Steven Heller and Jonathan Barnbrook on Experimentation. Barnbrook is a graphic designer, type designer, live-action director and run his own font foundry. His most popular fonts are Mason and Exocet released by Emigre Fonts. They discussed about his experiences, his type design and his personal opinion on graphic design. One of the dialogue that interest me is this :

Q by Heller:
How do you see graphic design as having changed – stylistically, philosophically, ideologically – from when you begin to now?

Barnbrook:
In many ways, graphic design has changed very little since the 1920’s. It is and always will be about problem solving a communication problem; it’s just that the definition of the problem and the many differing ways of communicating have changed. I think technology has obviously had an effect, both bad and good. It has allowed people to greater access to the tools of graphic design, but the education about how to use these things has not happened along with them. People should be fundamentally educated about the basis technology and typography, which is , first and foremost, that just because you can do something doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea. One very positive side is the fragmentation of the industry. There are many smaller design groups and font foundries than there ever had been before. This has produced more diverse work and allowed back-catalogue of typefaces to be released, allowing more particular typography. It is also true that graphic design has taken on the complexities of philosophy in much more mainstream work- ideas such as deconstruction. Despite the world generally turning more toward capitalism, graphic design has opened up to a much wider range of people rather than just big marketing-led design companies.

Watch Barnbrook video based on Typography