In “The True Artist Helps the World by Revealing Mystic Truths (Window or Wall Sign)” Bruce Nauman “…proclaims a private thought to a general public.” In doing so, he leaves the interpretation up to the viewer. It can be taken seriously, or not, or any way really.

“Difficult to prove or disprove, it takes a leap of faith from the outset to believe that one person can help the world or that “mystical truths” even exist. Rather than write the statement in a journal and debate what it means in private, Nauman makes his uncertainty a public affair. At a time when the young artist was questioning what it means to be an artist (a maker of non-utilitarian objects) and during a historical period fraught with political unrest and injustice (the late 1960s), Nauman’s sign is an investigation into the meaning of his own activity. Resonant with the popular idea that “knowledge is power,” Nauman’s work questions the artist’s relationship to a cultural equation.”

(source: pbs.org/art21/artists/nauman/card1.html)

I think designers feel obligated to eliminate all uncertainty when it comes to making a design object. There must be a clear, concise, and singular interpretation of the final piece. Many designers, myself included, may feel this is limiting and attempt to open up interpretation by allowing for interaction with the piece. Interaction means personalization in many instances. But, the issue here is that the user is still told how to interact with the design object. This is because the final design object does not have any ambivalence in it’s communication because ambivalence in communication is maybe failing to communicate your exact message.

How can I use ambivalence towards content to leave it open for multiple interpretations?

This entry was posted on Sunday, October 8th, 2006 at 4:28 pm and is filed under thesis topic, failure. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.