We also discussed the approach that I had taken in applying Rosenberg’s ‘poetic model’ onto my own research practice. He used the example of a table being designed for use in a cafe to explain the parts of the ‘reservoir’. My understanding of our conversation is the order of the parts look like this from the bottom up.

the project
(the fit)
the programme
the triggers

From the article:

The project - “…what it is, who it is for…how it works etc.” (p.9)

The programme - “…the conceptual and creative base…which contextualises socio-cultural debates and environmental concerns.” (p.9)

In conversation the ‘programme’ is the discourse around the design - for example the social theory around the design of the table, the cafe as a social environment etc. His argument in the article is that traditionally the designer moves from the project to the programme. His model reverses that process. ‘The triggers’ used to invigorate the conceptualsing in the programme may cross varying disciplines and points of interest, as a means to explore possibilities beyond the restraints of the pragmatic questions and answers surrounding the project objectives. Why? Returning to the article Rosenberg states: “The poetic reaches for the un-configured and the unusual expression of thought.” (p.7) In choosing the three triggers, he mentioned, for example, two of them may have a tentative connection with the theorising in the programme, the third may be totally left of centre, have a completely nebulous connection. Overall, the aim is to maintain a “tension” in the process and critically evaluate a position that maintains a connection with the main objective, while at the same time is flirting with as he described in the discussion the “un-knowing”.

In my own project, the three triggers are influenced by Sean Cubitt’s post, Sean Cubitt, ‘a note on content’. In hindsight, the conceptual choices I made for these nodes where not dis-connected or radically separated enough from the project question. The key project question in the context of an experimental practice would be to generate alternative modes of articulating and disseminating online video content. The next step was testing a trigger as part of as Rosenberg states: “definition, de-definition, re-definition”. (p. 10) After testing trigger 3, “new modes of network”, I then jumped straight into using that experience/process to re-define the overall research rationale, rather than waiting to test the other triggers. In my mind this is jumping back to making things linear and safe in line with a traditional research approach. Then, I presumed that the other trigger tests would be separate from test 1.0 but as TR pointed out why not fold those into the first test as extensions of that test - an idea I like. Now, on reflection I see what has happened the trigger 3., is to close to my original research rationale, hence the move to re-define the overall research. If it had been more removed this may not have occurred - all in the balance between as Rosenberg discusses, “grounding” and “open water”.

Where to now? Well as we discussed the model is a model that is open for interpretation and how it is used. The main aim here is to invigorate alternative approaches towards online audiovisual media. Having experienced the process, I aim to take a playful stance with that line - swimming (with the sharks) but not drowning.

References:

Terence Rosenberg, ‘The Reservoir: Towards a Poetic Model of Research in Design’, Working papers in Art and Design, Vol 1, The foundations of practice-based research, http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes1/research/papers/wpades/vol1/rosenberg2.html
p 7. (accessed April, 2006)

Sean Cubitt, ‘a note on content’, fibreculture mailing list, 17 September 2005
http://fibreculture.org/myspinach/fibreculture/2005-September/004673.html (accessed September, 2005)