AI tool as agent for change

Designers are increasingly using AI in their role as agents for change to society. That is, designers, together with AI have the capacity to influence or act in the world of design (largely defined). The human-AI collaboration, or interactive agency is now an everyday activity, from education to professional practice to an extent that text-to-image generators, for example, have become purposeful, goal-directed agents in themselves or, to borrow terminology for sociology, agents of intentional action. The rise of AI opens up the debate to what extent AI has autonomous agency. What seems certain though is that AI agency is impacting the role of the designer progressively shifting their roles from that of primarily producing a material good or service to that of ideator and facilitator addressing human needs and wants with emphasis of what is unique to human agency, notably equitable, sustainable and ethical concerns.

Lines of thought

'Taking a line for a walk' - a quote from the artist Paul Klee suggesting moving freely without hindrance and by which the line is described as 'a dot that went for a walk' - a point shifting its position forward. As such, the line is an evocative metaphor for generating and capturing an idea, such as  'on the back of an envelope'. Or, the metaphor of lassoing, that is, capturing an idea like catching an animal by throwing the ring of a lasso over its head. Or, to quote Henri Matisse: 'drawing is putting a line around an idea'. Such sayings underline the dynamic nature of the line. Or, to quote Klee again, 'a drawing is simply a line going for a walk', where the line becomes a symbol for the imaginary lines of projecting an idea. But what about expressions such as 'draw the line' meaning 'to never do something because you think it's wrong'. This connotation seems quite contradictory to Klee's notion of taking a line for a walk. Or, 'walk the line', a prison term which means 'follow the rules, stay out of trouble'. Again the opposite meaning of a line that represents moving freely. A line, then, can be interpreted figuratively or literally. Lines of thought.

The excitement of discovery

When working on a challenging problem, the solution might seemingly arrive out-of-the-blue, in what is often referred to as the “Aha!” moment. This moment of sudden insight is unpredictable, and a subjective experience but often accompanied by strong positive emotions. As such it might amount to the excitement of discovery. Or, in the words of Bertrand Russell, the philosopher and mathematician (1872-1970): 'Nothing in the world is more exciting than a moment of sudden discovery or invention, and many more people are capable of experiencing such moments than is sometimes thought.'.

Learning from reverse engineering

In product design, reverse engineering is to unearth certain components that can be repurposed for different application. Theft occurs in certain cases where the entire set of components that make up a product is appropriated and for which reason patents and copyright were created . More often, however, reverse engineering, both literally and figuratively is a legitimate way to establish what is going on in a specific field, practice or occupation. In these cases, reversed engineering is a form of dependent creation as evidenced in how original and valuable creations were built on the knowledge, experience, and copying of elements of what came before. Indeed, it is how we learn as humans, from an early age - we copy, then extend. That is, there is always some level of copying in accumulating knowledge directed to discovery and learning. Learning from reverse engineering, "reverse ideation" would mean keeping track of one's own ideation process, say, through sketches - what the architect Michael Graves would call "the referential sketch", or through a record of "swiped ideas" or inspirations from the the web. The recorded ideation process could then be reflected upon, and analysed for links and influences and in so doing becoming a learning experience.

Agency of freehand drawing

The arguments for and against drawing, or rather thinking with pen and paper versus with an electronic device, such as a digital tablet have been going on for years. Yet no firm conclusion has been reached either way. Yes, drawing on digital devices, and facilitated by software is generally considered to be easier and faster. And sharing digital work is much faster than sharing paper sketches. Also, improving, deleting, scaling or copying is more convenient on a digital device than on paper. Yet drawing on paper is a grounding experience - the friction of the pencil on paper guided by the hand has a different feel to it compared with using a stylus on a screen assisted by software. But when creative deadlines are tight, paper drawing can be seen as a time-consuming luxury. But, as practitioners of drawing on paper would argue, this is a luxury needed to allow designers to work independently, transparently and honestly in the early stages of designing. That is, the freehand drawing, in contrast to the "black box" of computing, is capable of expressing thoughts and feelings that complete the original quality of the design idea. Although it is for individual designers to decide what tool(s) they find most beneficial for their ideation practice, the aim of the workshop is to raise awareness of ideation through engagement with a range of ideation tools.

The exchange value of ideas

What happens to an idea's innate value when replaced by exchange value? Let's start with the ideation-workshop. The workshop's defining quality, as learning outcome, is for participants to explore ideation tools of their choice in order to raise their awareness of the ideation process. In this, there is no external assessment only participants' own perception or judgement to determine the criteria for most favoured ideation tool or tools. The workshop activities, then, are driven by curiosity and the value of the tool or tools can’t be arrived at through an outside, top-down measure. That is, participants can assess the value only by individually and carefully attending to what the value the tools or tools contain and, on their own, concluding their merit. Yet the end point for the ideator, or working designer is to create a product or service for sale. That is, the idea going to market. Once the product or service enters the market, the intrinsic value of the idea behind the product or service is emptied out, compacted by the market’s logic of ranking, until there’s only relational worth, or exchange value. That is, the idea has no longer interior worth. Instead, the personal, or intrinsic value of the idea is for the market to decide. And so, the workshop is evidence of the liberating fact that ideas, and ideation have intrinsic value not be measured, or processed as market productivity, or captured as market value. Now, what happens to the idea in the digital culture where everything seems dogged by digital tracking, where any online activity is capturable by artificial intelligence and transmuted into data? In this digital scenario, the ideator is a data worker which suggests that the ideator must engage in authorly self-promotion to replace the innate value of the idea with exchange value. In other words, the ideator must monetise their ideas in order to make a living from their ideas. That is, Gen AI, as data collection technology, hollows out authenticity and authorship which means the ideator is faced with crumpling self-worth as creator. This blog was inspired by Thea Lim, The Collapse of Self-Worth in the Digital Age (2024).

ideas in things

Age-old analogue ideation tools and methods, such as sketching and physical modelling, may have taken a back seat in the digital culture when content-creating tools like ChatGPT or Copilot have become mainstream. So, what then the future of traditional ideation tools such as pen and paper? Nesta (2019) found that organisations are becoming less experimental and more risk-averse in their approach to digital technologies - they prefer to let others experiment and then adopt the ideas that work best. Arguably, then, at least at individual level, analogue tools remain useful to designers to stimulate and capture the flow of ideas. And so, the pencil could be seen as a tool performing a role similar to that of a craftsman's tool - a tool that reflects a hands-on approach to design that connects with the idea of making things. That is, applying hand and mind to ideation, as in "thinking with a pencil" reflects the concept of the thing as idea. Or in the words of the poet William Carlos Williams: 'Say it, no ideas but in things'. That is, to focus on objects rather than mere concepts, on actual things rather than abstract characteristics of things. That is, concrete rather than abstract ideas ('idea' understood as a basic element of thought that can be either visual, concrete or abstract)..Considering the concept of the thing as idea, Dough Stows, author of The Wisdom of Our Hands (2022) writes: 'The mention of any object creates a visualised idea in our minds - we form an idea of the thing. Moreover, metaphors provide the basis of all human creativity, and those metaphors must of necessity be drawn from real tools, real processes, real understanding of concrete phenomenon, for the ideas that have merit are drawn from reality, from the experience of things.' This may suggest that designers overall favour concrete or visual ideas, or both over abstract ones. If so, this may resonate with a central feature of design activity where designers rely on 'generating fairly quickly a satisfactory solution rather than a prolonged analysis of the problem' (Nigel Cross, 1982)