collective interventions

(1) a plantiversal lexicon for a designer and his journey towards living-with.

on 09.01.2023. cartographying Oscar Tomico's trial on cohabitation

It is a Monday night (the ninth of January, pretty freezing), after a day of classes and future talks, we (Myrto and me) are entering the building in which our teacher and mentor Oscar Tomico lives in an apartment on the second floor. We are equipped with cameras and pens and big papers and all kinds of ideas how we will map out the more-than-human interrelationships that we will observe that evening. Three hours later, we leave the building again, not one picture is taken, not one line is drawn, we leave empty headed and with a heavy audio file on our phones.

Somehow it feels more natural to sit on the couch among all the green life and exchange thoughts about cohabitation over tea and biscuits. That said, the spaces that could serve as areas for drawing, mapping, or moving around are very limited, as plant pots and vases are literally taking up the entire room. But we soon agree on a interview format for this meeting as it seems very overwhelming to start drawing the relations at hand when not knowing anything about their pasts and presents. So, we listen, ask, take notes, agree, and disagree. Oscar shows us every corner of the plant world and the moment I accidentally touch a hanging branch with bright green leaves, he immediately draws my attention to it. There is a lot at stake here. A table, chairs, light and air. Wifi. We talk about how his co-living can evolve into an alternative present in here. Rather than him as a designer using the space as his autoethnographic research-centre, we could make this place here, in which Oscar and these plants are living, this apartment on the third floor of a building in the city of Barcelona, accessible. Instead observing alone, more people could execute their research about the interrelations they will become part of.

It is only sometime later, that Myrto and me sit in her living room and listen individually to the audio file, now having all the papers and pens in front of us, writing down quotes, point out agents and draw lines and arrows that connect and disconnect. After doing this on our own, we combine it in a digital space (our favourite tool: the Miro board).

What do I take?

During this intervention we had the opportunity to observe what it means to live with plants from a first person perspective. I realize (very cliché though) that having a lot of expectations of what information I might gain, stand in the way of actually experiencing the information that’s there. The decision not to use all the material we brought and only to record our conversation was a way of overcoming the anticipated map. I take from this the importance to have a clear question (goal?) that must come with the openness to work with what’s at stake and be an attentive observer.

(2) the traveller starts their journey

end of january till end of february at Ombu

as part of the design dialogues in december we made a sculpture that wears a lot of questions and QR-codes. The Traveller was a spontaneous creation that we hope to be a fruitful incentive to inspire conversations in a digital platform about post-humanism, binary system thinking, and more-than-human intelligences. We organized the many questions alongside the three-partition that we defined for processes of transitioning (unfamiliarize, grief, rebirth).

Having all that in mind, we brought The Traveller with all our questions and the QR-code that leads to the Etherpad and Miro-board, to a neighbourhood café in which it resonated for a few weeks with the daily public. The café Ombú is in Poblenou right in front of the headquarter of the delivery service Glovo and in between many private universities that deal with architecture and design. We are aware that the cafes, the neighbourhoods as well as the posed questions will not much deviate from our snow-ball-effect bubbles. It is one way of prototyping our idea for now.

What do I leave and what do I take?

The digital platform has not triggered the exchange and traffic we wished for. Only a few contributions appeared on the Etherpad in the first weeks. The lack of inspiration can have various reasons, but we see the biggest obstacle in the unspecific nature of our questions and topics. Without a connection to one’s own life and reality, it seems very difficult to engage in questions about abstract concepts that are often not fully understood. Even though our Etherpad has a small and clear lexicon of the terms we are dealing with, it seems to be too much effort to deal with them without direct feedback. An important takeaway, therefore, is to enable direct feedback and offer concrete links that people can identify with. Yet we met Nithin, who came across The Traveller while drinking his coffee and got intrigued because he is writing his master thesis on speculative-, transition-, and pluriversal design. He contacted us and we met a few times to talk about our common interest and design practices. The idea is to collaborate (bringing together our resources and ideas) on an event in the coming month.

(3) imaginar mundus possibles in disseny hub

on 19.01.2023. presenting our paper on the importance of storytelling

As I already mentioned earlier, after the first design dialogues in December, Myrto and me applied with a simple idea to a complex conference on speculative futures organized by the Esbrina Research Group. its name: imaginar mundos posibles: Potencialidades, límites y fricciones de la ficción especulativa en la investigación y la educación. And here we were then,19^th of January and we are going down the stair of the Disseny Hub Barcelona to reach the underground conference facilities.

The paper we wrote emphasizes the importance of creating and listening to stories in a world where few voices and stories are being noticed. We argue that stories are essential for going beyond monophonic and catastrophic narratives, and that they are a form of “attunement” to the worlds we find ourselves in. We propose a method for diversifying narratives about the future by democratizing storytelling and using speculative fiction as a tool. Based on Timothy Morton’s concept of a “mesh”, we propose a mapping technique that creates space for entangled narratives to evolve, encouraging participants to speculate about fictional scenarios that play out in this “web of life”. The paper will soon be published (in an internal publication of the conference) and you have full access to it here (if you are interested).

The conference took place over the course of two full days that were filled with presentations (in Castellano and Catalan) of other researchers that deal with speculative fiction as design methodologies. It was very interesting to listen to and we got in contact with curious minds and experienced practitioners. On Friday afternoon we had the chance to participate in a workshop under the lead of Yuri Tuma who is part of the artist collective The Institute for Postnatural Studies whose practice we both (Myrto and me) admire. This two-hour workshop left us enthusiastic and with many ideas and contacts on how and with whom we can continue our storytelling practice in more concrete ways.

What do I leave and what do I take?

Experiencing this conference was a direct sharing of the thoughts that others have around design practices that facilitate spaces for alternative worldviews. On the conference people presented their research fields and interests and we engaged in inspiring conversations and speculations. While it felt while being there as a fruitful exchange of likeminded people, reflecting on the conference latter on makes me realize what a exclusive group of people and minds this represents. We all talk the same language (in regard to thinkers, concepts and philosophies), yet to somehow who is not engaging with the authors and text we all do, it seems hard to follow or comprehend what we are talking about. The idea of a conference in which specialists come together thus seems opposing our initial goal to open and widen conversations and perspectives on the realities we live and share. Even if we are aware of the multiplicity of kinds and formats conferences can take on, we are reconsidering our idea of organizing a conference ourselves after these three days with the Esbrina Research Group. These days remained a place in which works, practices, experiences are presented and exchanged rather than created in being-with.

What fascinated us a lot was the subtleness of Yuri Tuma’s work and the strength of the speculative conversation his guidance evoked in the group of participants. There were about 30 of us between the ages of (more or less) 19 and 60, and everyone actively participated in the stimulating conversations and allowed the acting exercises to change perspectives and emphasise with unusual world views.

Another branch that came out of the conference was my connection with Kevin Marín, who approached us to be part of a research project he is involved in led by artist and anthropologist Quim Bonastre. Their research project “sensclusion” deals with the socio-cultural connection of people to spaces in vulnerable neighbourhoods and how healthy ties can be fostered. This will become more important later, so I only mention here that these ties start to grow from here.

(4) space for narrating the future of education

on 25.03.2023. facilitating a space with myrto

Having talked, and though, and brainstormed, and mindmapped, and read, and written, and so much more the last month, it has become time to try to facilitate that space for speculating in which more than us (Myrto and me), (and maybe even more-than-human actants) will benefit from imagining alternative realities. As we decided to (for now) put the idea of the conference on ice, we continue with the idea of a workshop. Based on what we read and experiences so far, we set up a curation of a first space in which we hope to inspire new perspectives and exchange. Along our three overarching concepts related to transitioning (unfamiliarized, grief, rebirth), we created some ply-wood cards with short descriptions of the concepts and their exercises that could guide us and the participants through the day. We went into it motivated and naiv (which I consider good - even when reflecting on how it went), without too many expectations but a good plan in our heads and hands.

First workshop 25^th of February 2023, Barcelona, sun is shining, 10 degrees Celsius. It is a Saturday morning; we are meeting in the studio of our friend and mentor Jana in Raval. We have invited for 11 o clock, by 11:30 we are all together, had some tea and fruit and are coming together to stand in a circle. A short introduction round makes us realize the bubble we are in. Amanda from the States, a MDEF student who is interested in the creation of a makerspace and who loves the self-sufficiency of coding- and electronics. Maria from Italy, who is one of the inviters roommates and works in the social sector with people with disabilities. Nithin from India, who works at Glovo as a UX expert and who is writing his master thesis on speculative-, transition-, and pluriversal design. Korbi from Switzerland, who is a MDEF Master student and concerned with the exploitation of the labor force and the search for new ways to life without work. Georgio from Switzerland, who is his friend and curious to pass by. Daphne from Greece, who is an ex-MDEF student and after finishing a few years ago continued her journey in future design dealing with system and imaginations of speculating. Quim from Spain, who is a geography professor and artist in Lleida and has various practices that deal with the interaction of space and learning processes. Jana from spain, who is an ex-MDEF student and is interested in transhumanistic ways of thinking and designing. Claudia from Italy, who is a MEDF student and is interested in the change of social behavior towards a more conscious consumption of resources. And the two facilitators Myrto and Stella from Greece and Germany, who are MDEF students and interested in disrupting binary thinkings and exploring polyphonic narration. All in all, we are between 24 and 40 years old, white and somewhat linked to the topic of the invitation – the educational system and how it is changing. Before introducing the topic and goal of the day, we are asked to close our eyes and settle into our body and into the space we are in. A few guided breathings and we open our eyer again to meet each other in concentration and curiousness. The next few hours will be guided along three phases of transition – we will unfamiliarize, grief, and rebirth by the help of three exercises. We will be dealing with a transition that is happening and that we all have experienced somehow close or far – the switch from solely in-person learning and teaching to hybrid forms that come with the introduction of the internet and globally accessible platforms that enable online and live exchanges. We divide into three groups, taking in the perspectives of either teachers, students, or means of communication. Within the groups we discuss and dialogue about what the above mentioned transition would mean for our position, what would change practically and how would it affect our position emotionally? After about half an hour, we meet with the other groups in a standing circle and each group presents its burning issues. A discussion starts to evolve. It seems difficult to argue from the group’s perspective and participants often appeal to their personal interests. For example, does Quim, who choose to represent means of communication, easily fall back into his actual role as a university professor and argues for the perspectives of the teacher. For the students, who all were students at one point in their lives (in this case not even very long ago and mostly still are), the participants refer to lived experiences. A discussion about the differences in legal regulation and the lack of digital skills arises. Soon all three groups agree on the current goals and deficits, which are not compatible with each other. We go into the next phase; After having unfamiliarized with what is known by taking in new perspectives and seeing what else there is at play, we continue into the grieving part. In the same groups we are asked to discuss what heritage we want to pass on, what essential qualities of the roles should not be forgotten but will eventually be something that is no longer practiced. For this phase the facilitators have calculated less time and after 20 min bring back the circle and we exchange the values we will be missing. This leads to a mapping of all the values that seem essential for learning and teaching, even in a digital future. Here, too, personal experiences, fears and desires are referred to and inspire our thoughts and words.

Someone mentions the potentiality of hybridness and starts drawing a scenario in which these values can be kept while allowing digital spaces to take over (some of) the physical learning places. We are slowly transitioning into the third phase our day – the rebirth. Each on themselves now writes down three scenarios on three different papers without disclosing their headings: one desirable future that’s possible, one undesirable future that’s plausible, and one desirable future that’s impossible. The studio with the low ceiling and the cold windows falls silent. We hear the pens on the paper, the teeth biting lips. When the facilitators announce five more minutes there is revolt, there is need for more time. Then we come together and place all our scripts face down on the floor in the middle of our standing circle. One by one we pick up a paper and read out loud what is written on it. Then we decide together if this is something we can imagine in a future education system that has made the transition from exclusively personal learning. There is a lot of movement now, we stand still, but there is laughter and discussion about all kinds of related implications. We discard the papers that are not wanted in our model and in this way build up a stack of propositions describing (parts of) an educational system that we would like to learn and teach with. A third stack of papers is the place for all the scripts we are not so enthusiastic about. The ones where we don’t really know whether to give them a chance or discard them straight away. After three rounds, and many repetitions of readings, the floor in our midst is empty again. It is getting late, and as the participants have to leave at 2pm, we are led again into a closed-eye breathing, to ourselves and the space, before some words of gratitude end the session for the day. People leave slowly, some stay, eat some more fruit and share their experiences.

another road that we take after some time passed by is to experiemtn with writing promts that we feed the Artificial intelligences ChatGPT, Midjourney and DALL-E with. we want to get inspired how we can transform all our abstract thought and word-plays into somoething habtic, some installation or structure that is threre-dimensional and touchable. what comes out are interesting new points of departure: images and stories about movable, educational pods

What do I leave and what do I take?

The selected participants and group size were good, but there was little diversity in terms of backgrounds. The workshop topic was relevant and future-oriented, but the transition had already happened partly, which may have limited imagination. Here, the instruction cards were pretty but not functional, and more multimedia tools could be tried in the future especially when trying to integrate and explore more-than-human intelligences. This also could help to inspire more radical ideas and imaginations about the topic of interest. At this moment, the workshop had a great exchange of realistic visions about the topic of interest, but it failed to ideate more radical ideas or create completely new narratives. Also, the timing of the workshop has been rethought as four hours was too long and tiring to deal with such abstract and creative processes. What we are very intrigued by was the experimentation with the AIs and its potenial for real-live integration of these tools into the workshop-process itself during follow up interventions.

overall reflection

Reflecting on the interventions I have co-facilitated from a 1PP perspective, my experiences show (once again) how often expectations of what will happen, how things will develop, are not met. Though, if I remain open to the unexpected, to the unknown ways of research, something fruitful and interesting can be the starting point for further developments (isn’t that food for new expectations?). I think I understand better now what is meant by radical situatedness. It means being free of boundaries within the boundaries previously set.

“When the structure is broken, no context can fill it”, and yet the content is always there, and it seems to be just a trick, just an exercise in knowing how to observe and see the content and of then placing, contextualising and (re)framing that content.