Intro
Tutor: Ariel Guersenszvaig
Student: Christian Ernst
Date: 30.05.2022
Task: „2-3 page report containing an ethical assessment of one’s own course project based on the exercises performed during class + readings + contents of the lectures. The assessment should be reflective (not merely descriptive) and it should contain a discussion of themes in the project or of aspects thereof that merit ethical reflection. While not mandatory, it is recommended that it also included next steps or courses of action that can be taken to remediate ethical issues creating risks and harms.“
Ethical Considerations
Every time we design, we subconsciously take ethical decisions. In order to be a socially responsible designer (and human being) it is mandatory to act with care and ethical considerations. When we reflect on our term three projects, the following questions come to mind:
- Do our projects moralise? Implicitly or explicitly?
- What values are we inscribing in the design?
- How do we materialise these values into design?
- Defaults: where is our starting point?
- How could this damage certain groups or be unevenly beneficial?
Setting the Stage
In order to reflect on these questions, we have to take a brief moment to set the framework for my final MDEF project, or ‚design intervention‘ as we like to call it. The main focus is to create an experience to that highlights the fact that natural and technological ecosystems are closely related, however counter-intuitive it might seem at first. By investigating these overlapping areas through our senses, we venture in hybrid worlds of sounds, visuals and haptics. Between self-mutating algorithms and recursive patterns in nature, we draw similarities and aim to provoke questions about a more sustainable and tangible view of technology. That is the goal of the interactive installation and the feeling we want to instill in our visitors.
Embedding Morals
But how can we make sure that this event carries our ethical values, intentionally? In this exhibition we go to great lengths not to moralize the visitor explicitly, however tempting it might be. Our topic of nature and technology is currently shaped by the societal debate around tech accelerationism and organic post-growth models. This however portraits the two as monolithic alternatives that have nothing in common. We want to show that there are indeed many overlapping areas, similarities and synergies. It is tempting in this context to lift the metaphorical index finger to moralize and to try educate your audience about that. This, I believe, is not the preferred way. I would be happier if we make people question current paradigms by themselves, engage in conversations and build these bridges in professional discussions, such as their work place. In that sense, we only strive to light a spark with this exhibition.
Nonetheless, the values embedded in the exhibition pieces are plain to see. We aim to provoke a new understanding of algorithms in nature and nature in algorithms. Intersectionality and interspecies collaboration are topics dear to our heart. Forcefully keeping them out of the final exhibition pieces would be disorienting at best and harmful at worst. It is after all, the primary driver for our work and the reason we curate and produce this very exhibition.
To make our values able to be communicated and experienced, we tap into three of our senses: Hearing, touching and seeing. Specifically touching the exhibits and physically interacting with them will carry an important role in embodying our moral values. By having our visitors touch a biomaterials or plant, which in turn is an interface for controlling the multimedia installation, is an elegant way to create intimate moments between these two. It is saddening that we (read: urban joint professionals) need to have a reason provided to physically interact with a plant or an algae, but this might as well serve the purpose. It is a powerful way to create an unexpected interaction that will hopefully grow into a broader questioning of mental frameworks.
Ethical Pitfalls and Criticism
This comes, however, not without its problems. By choosing Akasha Hub as the exhibition location, a community coworking space centered around a blockchain startup, we consciously limit the accessibility to the broader neighborhood and surrounding social fabric. Contrary to exhibiting in a public space – which comes with its own host of challenges – showing our works in a closed, tightly controlled environment is in many ways the opposite of inclusivity.
Moreover, we exclude not just by place, but also by language and topic. From the communication team at IAAC, English will be the primary language used to frame the exhibition and promote it, so by default we exclude a large number of Barcelona natives. To mitigate that, we will try to use the additional Spanish-language channels to promote the event and invite to it. Additionally, we will make sure our project descriptions on-site are not only available in both English and Spanish (and if possible in Catalan as well), but are also formulated in a way that is accessible for non-academic audiences. Ultimately the knowledge you expect as a default from the visitor is often a discriminating factor – which makes it another reason for ethical consideration.