Redundancia en el movimiento Browniano cu´antico

If  fiesta  is  participation  in  primordial  time  –  the  collectivity  literally  shares  out  among  its  members,  like   sacred  bread,  the  date  being  commemorated  –  craftsmanship  is  a  sort  of  fiesta  of  the  object:    

it  transforms  a  utensil  into  a  sign  of  participation.  Octavio  Paz,  (1987:  60)        

Winner  of  a  Nobel  prize  for  literature,  Mexican  writer  and  poet  Octavio  Paz  celebrates   the  object  and  the  craftsmanship  as  a  participatory  process.  He  likens  the  materiality   of  artefacts  to  powerful  legal,  economic  and  religious  values  (1978).  ‘Craftsmanship  is   a  sign  that  expresses  society  not  as  work  (technique)  or  as  a  symbol  (art,  religion)  but   as  a  shared  physical  life’,  in  which  a  sense  of  identity,  solidarity  and  ownership  unites   people  (Paz,  1987:  59).  He  sees  craftsmanship  as  a  strong  sign  of  community.  He   contrasts  design  and  craftsmanship,  in  which  he  discusses  the  meaning  of  beauty  for   the  mass-­‐produced  objects  of  design  in  relation  to  the  individual  and  collective   manifestation  of  the  artefacts  if  craftsmanship  produced  by  local  community.  He  sees   the  work  of  local  communities  as  a  repository  of  values,  embedding  the  meaning  of   the  place,  the  people,  their  traditions  and  their  views.  In  contrast,  but  not  in  a  negative  

sense,  his  view  of  the  beauty  of  the  design  was  linked  to  an  ‘invisibility’  of  the  form   and  function  of  the  objects  (1987,  59).    

These  ideas  lead  this  chapter  into  a  discussion  of  the  encounter  between  designers   and  artisan  producers.  They  bring  in  the  contrast  between  mass  production  and  local   production  in  two  parallel  ways,  where  design  and  craftsmanship  does  not  meet  or   mix.  Paz  brings  the  sense  of  meaning  and  distinction  of  the  local  artefacts  and  the   personal  character  that  is  transmitted  through  its  physicality  (Paz,  1987:  57).    

So,  what  is  achieved  by  an  encounter  between  these  two  approaches  to  materials  and   artefacts?  Philosopher  Paul  Carter  (2004:11)  asks  what  collaboration  between  two   different  creative  practices  does  to  the  social,  economic,  political  and  environmental   debates.  Firstly,  it  is  necessary  to  define  who  the  designers  and  the  artisan  producers   of  this  thesis  are.    

4.2.1 Artisan producer and producer community

Artisan  producer  is  a  term  that  I  borrow  from  Littrell  and  Dickson  (2010)  to  refer  to   artisans  and  producers  who  are  producers  of  materials  and/or  local  makers  –  whether   traditional  or  not  –  who  are  linked  to  each  other  through  their  cultural  practices,   materials,  tools  and  the  place  they  live  in.  This  shared  context  is  what  I  call  a  producer   community.  It  embeds  the  sense  of  community  celebrated  by  Paz  (1987),  which   defines  identity,  a  sense  of  belonging  and  participation,  and  is  closely  related  to   wellbeing.  

4.2.2 Design and designer

Design  professionals  need  to  understand  the  nature  of  design  knowledge  and  its  concepts,  in  an  era   when  relations  between  power  and  knowledge  are  changing.  (Verran,  2009:15)  

The  word  ‘design’  is  interpreted  and  applied  in  different  ways.  To  start  with,  design  is   considered  as  an  innate  human  capacity  to  prefigure  and  intervene  in  the  material   world,  associated  with  the  artefacts  that  constitute  our  visual  and  material  cultures,   and  the  aesthetic  and  functional  characteristics  of  objects  (Chick  and  Micklethwaite,   2011:  17;  Fry,  2008:  2;  Papanek,  1984).  This  ability  became  institutionalized  as  a   disciplinary  field  and  a  profession  primarily  related  to  mass  production  and  attentive   to  the  demands  of  the  industry  through  a  process  of  planning,  prototyping  and   realizing.  This  understanding  of  the  roles  of  professional  designers  has  changed  and   expanded.  For  example,  from  creators  to  co-­‐creators  and  participants  (Spark,  2012;  

Sanders,2006;  Fuad-­‐Luke,  2010),  from  products  to  services  (Manzini,  2015;  Kimbell,   2009)  and  from  attending  the  interests  of  the  industry  to  meet  the  needs  of  individual   people  in  society  (Grout,  2013).  According  to  design  Historian  Penny  Sparke  (2012),  the   end  of  the  twentieth  century  marked  a  new  era  for  design,  driven  by  a  more  holistic   awareness  of  the  processes,  as  well  as  by  ‘a  radical  reassessment  of  the  social,  cultural   and  economic  roles  of  design,  permeating  theorists,  practitioners,  educators  and  the   business  sector’  (Sparke  2012:  180-­‐181).  The  change  in  focus  from  designing  products   to  designing  processes,  strategies,  interactions  and  actions  leads  to  the  insight  that   there  are  many  outcomes  and  implications  in  the  design  process,  that  it  is  multiple  and   can  be  shared.  This  study  emphasizes  this  approach  to  design  and  intends  to  

contribute  to  an  enhancement  of  the  capabilities  of  professional  designers  to  act  more   holistically  and  in  the  flow  of  the  interactions,  as  suggested  by  Grout  (2013).    

4.2.3 On the complexity of design and the designers’ roles

Two  definitions  of  how  design  and  designers  operate  proposed  by  design  researcher   Lucy  Kimbell  (2012)  embrace  the  complexity  of  design  processes.  Kimbell  suggests  a   comprehensive  view  of  design  through  two  mutually  structured  ways:  ‘design-­‐as-­‐

practice’  and  ‘designs-­‐in-­‐practice’.  The  first,  design-­‐as-­‐practice,  considers  the  both   embodied  ways  in  which  the  designer  acts,  and  the  ‘set  of  material  and  discursive   practices  which  are  enacted  during  design  activity’,  which  includes  artefacts  that  are   used  and  created  in  the  design  process  (2012:  135).  The  second  concept,  designs-­‐in-­‐

practice,  comprises  the  plurality  of  the  activity,  arising  from  the  understanding  that   design  is  never  complete  and  never  discrete.  The  concept  considers  the  endless  nature   of  the  design  process,  even  when  the  product  has  been  handed  over  to  the  end  user.  

‘Through  the  engagement  with  a  product  or  service  over  time  and  place,  the  user  or   stakeholder  continues  to  be  involved  in  constituting  what  design  is’  (Kimbell,  

2012:135).  The  concepts  of  design-­‐as-­‐practice  and  designs-­‐in-­‐practice  eliminate  the   reductionist  idea  of  design  as  a  problem-­‐solving  activity  by  attempting  to  identify  the   processes,  elements  and  actors  that  are  integral  to  the  practice.  This  notion  of  designs-­‐

in-­‐practice,  which  is  a  relational,  interactive  process,  resonates  with  the  Activity   Theory  (Engeström,  2001)  presented  in  Chapter  5,  and  which  goes  on  to  become  a   central  part  of  this  thesis,  exploring  the  relationships  mediated  by  artefacts  (tools,   objects,  products).    

Kimbell’s  dual  definition  of  design  as  both  design-­‐as-­‐practice  and  designs-­‐in-­‐practice   adds  a  broader  understanding  to  this  process,  which  continues  beyond  time  and  the   artefacts.  Collaboration  and  co-­‐creation  through  the  artefacts  and  their  productive   process  leave  a  legacy  (Behar,  2011)  that  is  transformed  throughout  time.  Design  is  a   continuum  that  exists  through  the  designer  but  is  also  independent  of  the  designer;  it   is  related  to  the  materiality  of  the  artefacts  and  the  consequences  for  all  concerned,   from  the  producers  and  users  to  the  natural  environment  and  the  network  involved   (Kimbell,  2012;  Carter,  2004).  The  complexity  of  the  processes  involving  designers  and   community  members  comprise  many  factors,  elements  and  people.    

For  Manzini,  the  cross-­‐practices  and  networked  relationships  (or  coalition)  involved  in   social  innovation  processes  outline  two  overarching  roles  for  the  designer  (Manzini,   2015:52):  the  first,  to  trigger  social  innovation  by  ‘introducing  ideas  and  visions  to  feed   and  orient  coalition’;  the  second,  to  facilitate  people’s  participation  in  the  network  of   relations  by  making  the  best  of  their  skills  and  develop  new  ones.  In  this,  designers  can   mediate  relationships  within  the  network  of  relations,  facilitating  access  to  markets   and  promoting  broader  collaborations.  Within  this  framework  of  social  change  and   sustainability,  design  becomes  an  open-­‐ended  process  which  is  continuous,  spread   among  the  parties  involved,  dialogical,  collaborative  and  mutable  (Manzini,  2015;  

Kimbell,  2012).  Thus,  the  design  process  exists  independently  of  the  designer,  but  is  

‘distributed  across  a  number  of  different  people  and  artefacts  that  together  enact   designing  and  designs’  (Kimbell,  2012:  132).  Within  this  network,  Russ  (2010:102)   suggests  a  leadership  role  for  the  designer,  not  in  a  controlling  sense  but  in  the  need  

for  the  profession  to  orchestrate  connections  that  integrate  labour,  production   methods,  materials,  actions  and  strategy  for  the  realization  of  a  project.    

Kimbell  (2012:  135)  considers  that  design-­‐as-­‐practice  and  design-­‐in-­‐practice  opens   design  practice  to  other  professionals,  organizations,  communities  and  users,  who  are   thus  considered  participants  in  the  design  process.  This  idea  enriches  the  

understanding  of  design  as  a  process  of  multiple  collaborations  that  involves  a  broader   network  of  relations  in  which  diverse  backgrounds,  voices  and  roles  participate  in  the   realization  of  collective  and  individual  agendas.  The  definitions  and  considerations  of   the  roles  of  the  designer  and  the  complexity  of  the  design  process  lead  to  the  

perception  of  the  designer  as  a  multifaceted  professional  who  participates  in  a   complex  networks  of  relations  that  encompass  clients,  institutions,  communities,   cooperatives,  producers,  industry,  and  everyday  situations  in  which  design  emerges  –   in  fashion,  crafts,  and  products,  among  others.