artifacts 314-520: Labor Politics in the Studio
a degree endeavor by s suryanarayanan in spring 2019
cover: harry c + anya g @ provwash above: clay c + adrienne m + rowan s-j @ woodshop
artifacts 314-520: Labor Politics in the Studio a degree endeavor by s suryanarayanan in spring 2019
developed at the rhode island school of design within its department of furniture design under the kind guidance and support of meg callahan & christopher specce
produced with endless gratitude & appreciation for: the narragansett and wampanoag people on whose land i have lived and learned for four years; my beloved, talented, compassionate, maker friends in the class of fd19; the thinkers whose questions and words demand criticality in all my inquiries -- meg c, chris s, tyler i, lothar w, tim m, jonathan h, jeff m, erin u, emma w; my p.o.s.e. + g.i. families who cemented my commitment to fighting for justice, equity, and inclusion in art&design; my gremlins and their flammability; and communities that hold each other close.
table of contents intoduction mold friend artifacts 103-201 collaborative apprenticeship three friendly studies the big tarlatan box summary references
-- 6 -- 14 -- 16 -- 18 -- 23 -- 28 -- 36 -- 40 -- 42
artifacts 314-520: Labor Politics in the Studio is a year-long endeavor in which i examine my relationship to labor and productivity within the postcolonial contexts of risdâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s department of furniture design. looking at the effects of hegemonic systems on my relationships with people, environments, and the objects that bring the two together, i use this collection of actions, performances, and portraits to construct a subjective and semi-biographical narrative concerning labor politics within maker / artist / designer workspaces.
artifact 511 photograph of box, 2019.
this degree project helped begin the process of decolonizing my mind and body as they relate to arts institutions and cultural communities. this act of decolonization involves identifying the influence of systems and hierarchies on my relationships with people and environments; reflecting on these realities both individually and communally; and preventing or deterring the continued influence of those systems and hierarchies. my degree endeavor falls under the territory of artistic exploration and expression. my degree endeavor contends with the skills i’ve gained over the past four years, and how they help me / my community / the world at large. in some ways this contention is due to risd’s inability to be socially / politically / economically equitable—but it is equally a product of my upbringing, my identity, and my influences. as i bid adieu to my undergraduate citizenship and begin to formalize my relationship(s) with the world(s) around me, i need to acknowledge the “trickle-down” of History and act reparatively (for myself, for my peers, for strangers…). so, while i still have the support i’ve accumulated at risd, i started to scratch this itch of ‘what drew me here? and what pushed me away?’ in the hopes of making healthier transitions into newer fields of exploration and expression.
artifacts 314-520 (LPS) details the start of my pursuit for unlearning imperialism and decolonial closure.
preliminary inquiries in the fall (when ideas of portraiture, labor, and process were tested) guided me to the following experiments on performance and reflection. the first study, collaborative apprenticeship, was designed as a way to engage with my highly-valued peersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; high values... which related most to the field of physical object making, a realm treasured by my peers, yet secondary to my own well-being. after collaborative apprenticeship, i created the big tarlatan, which riffs on the seen and unseen details of labor in studio through drawing and etching. simultaneously i worked on box, which relies on seeing fd as an equally significant permanent receptacle in comparison to art&design marketsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;what happens when labor occurs solely for the sake of labor recognition?
artifact 1121 graphite portrait of mold friend, 2018.
this degree project produced the aforementioned artifacts (abstract, evidential, and constructed) as well as a number of supplementary prints and drawings. artifacts 314-520 (LPS) display my creative growth and development as much as they attest to my personal interests and contexts. they are the manifestations of self-reflection, of evolution, of heartbreak... of all that follows from portraiture, abstraction, and figuration.
collaborative apprenticeship, performance, 2019.
the big tarlatan, etched copper plate, 2019. box, plywood, steel, paint, and laquer scraps, 2019.
these artifacts manifest my inquiries and their resulting understandings in an effort to help my peers understand the roots, impacts, and futures of my work. critical conversation with my peers and friends was the main method of reflection, in combination with academic / theoretical writings on the topics of labor and postcolonialism.
i am building with the help of making-centered decolonization as discussed by rose b. simpson, chitra ganesh, and gabrielle de la puente and zarina muhammad of the white pube. with the help of their knowledge, my projects will examine the nuances of my relationship to the world of Making through theory, first-person interactions, and personal reflection.
maria by rose b. simpson. modified el camino, 2014.
tales of amnesia by chitra ganesh. digital illustration, 2002.
chantal feitosa-desouza with the white pube photograph on iphone, 2018.
will i ever be fully decolonized? will my decolonization will be enough? i do not know now as i write this report, and i did not know when this endeavor beganâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;but this endeavor has made me comfortable with the fact that i may never know. in the vein of my relationships with my peers, i have learned that understanding my postcoloniality is a matter of communication, introspection, and empathy.
artifacts 0716 (above) and 0723 (below), photographs from sketchbook, 2018.
i developed the set of questions on the right to guide me as i engaged with my pedagogical curiosities. these frameworks reiterate my ideologies as a maker, such as: the consideration of individual presence in communal studio environments; the fostering of collective creative & professional relevancy; and the acknowledgement of subjective contextualization in smaller and larger regions.
artifact 218, screenshot of has s / have sâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s digital document, 2019.
artifact 1121 mold friend made of steel and paper pulp, 2018.
iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d like to think that those specific ideologies were brought to light because of my preparatory explorations in the fall, the most significant of which was constructing mold friend. this strange self-portrait / chair was born after weeks of agonizing design iteration, during which my abilities and interests as a maker were challenged. in this period, i found myself unable to be productive while still outputting tremendous amounts of labor due to the unhealthy emotional temperature(s) of the studio space(s). after those weeks of designing an entirely different project, mold friend came about through a means of making that i found physically, intellectually and emotionally productive. it was made independently from aesthetic and conceptual pressures, and focused on admiring the grays of makership and presenting them as neither good nor bad. an exhibition of how labor can both be beautiful and deteriorate over time, mold friend is an autobiographical timestamp of its making process, a transparent reflection of my maker instinctsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;as well as a representation of how one can leave emotionally unstable work environments and create safe havens of oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own.
mold friend asks that its audience think about: what makes a studio environment conducive to productivity? what forms of labor are appreciated by makers? what forms are recognized? how can labor, function, and productivity be ephemeral yet necessary?
artifact 124, photograph of print in artifacts 103-201, 2019.
as i continued to explore the studioâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to influence productivity, i found myself noticing its materials and furnishings to be as dominant as the people who direct tangible sociopolitical flows. objects are equally, if not more, absorbent of environmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; personalitiesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;and their presence in backgrounds is not to be overlooked. artifacts 103-201 is a collection of miniature soft ground intaglio etchings that use tarlatan (a cheesecloth like fabric used to wipe copper plates before printing) to materially map the movements of makers in the studio. artifact 122, photograph of print in artifacts 103-201, 2019.
artifact 130, photograph of artifacts 103-201, 2019.
artifacts 103-201 builds on the language of mold friend, examining the elements of physical studio spaces that encourage and support healthy maker practices. like mold friend, artifacts 103-201 looks at intuitive making, with little focus on highly curated or coordinated movements in order to illustrate and narrate the subjective, ephemeral, and specific nuances of studio culture. it is a product of local environment-driven composition, not of larger cultural ideals as professed by its hegemons.
artifacts 103-201 asks that you think about: how are objects and people recording the actions of one another? how do their presences contribute to the well-being of the other? what is the significance of nuanced iteration, rather than standardized mimicry??
artifact 305, pdf of electronic request for collaborative apprenticeship to jon n, 2019.
so, we get to our first artifact: collaborative apprenticeship a performance piece that examines labor practices within studio environments: specifically those that occur when i work under my peers in the community of fd19. these beloved coworkers are experienced makers within the art&design fields: collaborative apprenticeship works with their creative practices as environments conducive to gaining pedagogical and professional skills—just like any other apprenticeship. thus, through work as a studio assistant (for all class citizens who participated: students, staff, faculty alike), i proposed re-examining the production of objects and concepts, specific to fd19 work culture. i offered the skills i have gained over the past four years in exchange for individual experience with my peers’ practices—e.g.: welding and etching assistance in exchange for work with leather dyes or plastics. this riffed off other intern / assistant positions common to art&design, where makers offer labor to glean skills from other (more experienced) makers in the field. here, the experts are my peers -- and the field is the department’s studios. apart from the exchange of physical labor, i also asked for additional compensation through conversation. these discussions aimed to unpack studio practices, critique expectations, and labor ideologies, mirroring the financial reimbursement found in professional work exchanges. collaborative apprenticeship is a means to understand how material-, environment- and object-based practices are intertwined and dependent on each other. it helps unpack the labor practices of the studios i inhabit in order to understand how postcolonial and neo-imperial politics can permeate even welcoming, comfortable, and healthy spaces. my inspirations for collaborative apprenticeship come from tom c’s & lotte w’s discussions of props in pedagogy, as well as from mierle laderman ukeles / maintenance art and caroline woolard / art lexicon. collaborative apprenticeship asks you to consider the following: how do you orchestrate environments that best cater to all citizens’ needs? how do you collaboratively create a framework for communal / pedagogical review?
artifact 519, pages of collaborative apprenticeship, 2019.
i embarked on collaborative apprenticeship with a class-wide proposal, taking requests for studio assistance. this proposal led to me working with and under elena r, adrienne m, anya g, alan c, harry c, alicia w, kira d, soo j, irene w, bea m, jacob m, vale b-r, haojun g, rowan m, and meg c & chris s. with each of these members of the fd19 community, i performed tasks specific to their practice, taking some mundane responsibilities (such as sanding, typing, and moving) off their plate so they could focus on endeavors they deemed to be more personally pertinent. these skills were professionally relevant to me, as they reframed my education in fd, as well as to my peers, as they increased my peersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; active working time. after weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d finished our work in shop, my collaborator and i would have conversations about how they see labor affecting their productivity:
what tasks do makers in fd19 actively enjoy performing? how does the presence of an assistant change that relationship? how do they contend with the physicality of the objects they produce, and their presence in the world as objects requiring labor from others?
artifact 329, photograph of collaborative apprenticeship under valeria b-r, 2019.
for six weeks, the focus of the collaborative apprenticeship was on mutual conversational and conceptual development. i marked most of my progress by writing diary entries on my collaborations, outlining theoretical and production highlights.
artifacts 318 and 406, screenshots of progress check-in, 2019.
these entries became a means to cross-reference the physical and intellectual labor i performed over the weeks past. it was a map through collaborative apprenticeship, specifically to assist my instructors meg c & chris s navigate the work i was participating in as a studio assistant.
but in the context of a furniture design / object-oriented academic department, colloquial written documents did not stand up to fd standards of Presentation and Labor... which meant that i had to find a different method of getting makers to discuss collaborative apprenticeship and its relationship to art&design; to question how different forms of labor are valued; to examine how (in)visible (un)productivity can be.
i reflected on artifacts 103-201 and how they captured studio environments and invited reflection on those spaces. how could i advance this conversation to specifically examine labor? productivity? visibility?
scraps and trash became the studio furnishings i turned to, given their physical memories of labor. some labor remained recognizable and traceableâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;bandsaw marks indicated process, while material specificity led to certain studio benches. but other moments of labor were lost before i found the scrap, such as sourcing or handling. with three friendly studies, i highlight some of these Marks of Labor and downplay others, asking my peers to question how they see and hide their maker presence / touch. three friendly studies A, photograph of a -- white oak, wax, polywhey, 2019.
three friendly studies B, photograph of b -- cherry, wax, danish oil, 2019.
three friendly studies C, photograph of c -- paper pulp, charcoal, 2019.
in regards to my self-established criteria, collaborative apprenticeship and three friendly studies prompted deep thinking about portraiture and biography, both metaphoric and literal. with the help of this endeavor, i’ve realized that my work is highly reliant on sustainable and communal environmental curation. though collaborative apprenticeship engaged fairly well with faculty and students, its relationship to staff was limited—the involvement of techs & coordinators could have added new contexts. the studio has become increasingly present as both material and subject within my work. as a result, art&design at risd / beyond are secondary materials and subjects, given their direct influence on studio culture. these location-specific examinations have helped unpack my productivity’s reliance on busy studios and positive peer relationships. the discussions and performances of labor introduced and continued conversations about cultural imperialism, pedagogy, relational aesthetics, and communal making to my peers—especially with verbal and physical tools for inquiry. this was a test of my citizenship within fd19, as well as with effective communication, as i needed to employ a sense of diplomacy within my advocacy, and change these roles from space to space. both collaborative apprenticeship and three friendly studies embraced communal making, a method of making i appreciate. seeing as my work directly involved the work of others, it sustained their interest; the resulting studies carried similar weight and commanded attention adequately. these studies, as rugged and friendly companions as they may be, still need to address their authenticity—what is manufactured and what is naturally occuring? and when it comes to documentation, how can those characteristics be elevated? i found that writing lent itself to the collaborative apprenticeship while photography and physical handling benefitted three friendly studies. as reliant as the performance and its artifacts are on each other, how can their relationships be sustained? and with relation to my peers? and if physical collaboration demands citizenship from all participants, how does intellectual collaboration do the same? the studies’ demands of my peers’ citizenship are purely production and attention related, while the performance asks for financial and material investment. both rely on presentation, exclusively by me and for fd19; and both demand labor from viewers, whether explicit and formal or implicit and colloquial. 26
artifact 518a, photograph of the big tarlatan print + ghost, both print and photograph by sam n, 2019.
as collaborative apprenticeship continued, i began working on the big tarlatan, another soft ground intaglio etching. i wanted to see what would happen if i continued my own creative practice while still working as a part-time studio assistant for my peersâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;
is it possible to perform labor for other people in exchange for professional clout, while critically developing your own creative maker practice and presence? how do makers manage their financial, creative, and intellectual well-beings simultaneously? is this different in postcolonial studio spaces? are these exchanges of labor and emotion equitable? could they be representative of a decolonized environment?
what elements of other artistsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; work remain hidden to an artist in the studio? how can details of labor be lost when examining The Big Picture? what types of labor recognition do studio communities perform? expect? artifact 518b, photograph of the big tarlatan, 2019.
the big tarlatan, soft ground copper plate intaglio, 2019.
the big tarlatan takes collaborative apprenticeshipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s portraiture of studio and zooms in, focusing specifically on detailed labor and its loss of recognition over time. this piece remains in conversation with ideas of Making, specifically working with the Mundane In The Act Of Creation. like hannah bâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s discussions of hidden craft, and emma wâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s knits of congressional architecture, the big tarlatan looks at how smaller tasks make up a larger product, yet do not receive equal consideration or appreciation.
artifacts 410-517, photographs of the big tarlatan, 2019.
the big tarlatan is more covert in its connection to / with my peers, the studio, and art&design at risd and beyond. rather than contending with who or what the individuals / institutions / ideologies are, the big tarlatan concerns itself with what these folks and things do: specifically, their collective agreement that menial labor may be deemed unpresentable, unrecognizable, and untreasured. this piece reframes how minimal or subtle details are talked about and critiqued in fd and broader art&design spheres. it encourages conversations about how process and labor are made invisible for professional and aesthetic comfort. it touches on how this ideology, of menial laborâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s lack of worth, has been a tool of colonial and imperial forces in perpetuating yt-cis-heteropatriarchy / in oppressing those whose identities donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t match those of the people with more capital power. to say that labor is invisible or worthless is to demand a form of normativity that excludes all individuals who are kept from holding dominant positions in society. the creation of this copper etching was secondary to the other responsibilities i assumed as studio assistant; this ensured that it did not actively detract from the well-being of studio environments. as a result, this artifact accompanied me to a variety of work sites, and became a project to develop in moments of respite. the big tarlatan was composed specifically to be able to engage fd19 community members from afar and up close. this is aided by its physical documentation and verbal presentation, which focus as much on the labor behind it as it does on its presentation by asking its audience to remember what they did and did not notice.
most of this reflection on the details and nuances of hidden and / or forgotten labor comes from my interactions with the intaglio studios in the print department. in comparison to fdâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, print community members seem to focus their attention on more uniformly removing evidence of maker presence / touch. as a result, its secondary / tertiary / beyond materials are discarded with greater ease -- and those materials carry the essence of the studioâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ethereal personality with even greater ease. they capture the frustration, excitement, and kindredness of the studio members in their knots and tussles -- and the nature of printmaking lend well to their documentation.
artifact 419, photograph of monotype on newsprint, 2019.
alongside the creation of the big tarlatan, i analyzed the relationship between a material and its portraits. what happens when a material is used to manufacture its own portrait? how much change can that material go through to retain its original personality and presence? what forms of labor alter the materialâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s essence? and what forms can literally or metaphorically recreate that first personality and presence? can a separate viewer, using those recreations, build a fair picture of who / what the material was?
the larger attempt of artifacts 314-520 is inquire of labor politics as a means of constructing a self-portrait, with my maker-identity, within fd as studio / community, highlighted. what happens when i use these artifacts to build a self-portrait, when their materiality is vastly different and abstracted in comparison to my own physical, emotional, and intellectual being? at what point does a tool for reflection become a mirror? at what point does it become a painting? at what point does it stop reflecting, and show an image of its own choosing?
artifact 420, photograph of woven monotype on scrap paper, 2019.
box, plywood, steel, paint and laquer scraps, 2019.
artifact 518c, photograph of box lid, 2019.
box is my final step in addressing these questions, packaging them in a circular and self-referential moment where each relies on the other to be discussed or even exist. for box, it is most productive when it is used to contain the items that make up artifacts 314-520 (LPS). the box itself is constructed exclusively using scraps from a variety of shops, again riffing with the language of materially captured portraiture. and like the objects it holds (specifically big tarlatan, three friendly studies, and collaborative apprenticeship: documentation), box provides commentary on labor that is seen or unseen. here, however, the statements are far more satirical, with decorative labor acting as faux-humble moment of staged intuition. (can labor be falsified?) yet, despite its material weight, box is unproductive when not in use -- it is only â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;worthyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; when being a storage tchotchke for artifacts 314-520 (LPS). this is a way to prompt myself and fd19 to reconsider what practices are canonically seen as functional and productive uses of space / material.
artifact 512, photograph of box, 2019.
artifact 518a, photograph of box, 2019.
box plays with ideas of labor and productivity specific to academic institutions. when makers in fd19 create work solely for inter-institutional presentation, are these works fully productive? is the studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; labor respectable? how do you bridge the gap between academic learning and professional practice, without sacrificing the acknowledgement of subjective / regional / institutional bias? how do you use your work, made as an undergraduate citizen, to exemplify your skills as a larger-scale critical inquirer, if the only thing you can critically inquire is speculative and highly local? if i am most interested in being a changemaker and decolonizer, should i not show my abilities to future collaborators by creating change and decolonizing my local ecosystems? my answer to this came in the form of box, which culminates my ideas from artifacts 314520 (LPS). this object not only allows for me to neatly pack my past months of fd19-specific critical inquiry, but also engages with the broader question of what skills do you learn from an academic institution like risd? and how do you manifest them for others to understand?
artifact 518p, photograph of empty box base, 2019.
if i am, in creative, emotional, professional, and intellectual practice, a Pedagogue and Critic, how do i translate these abilities to the fd19 family, whose primary language utilises craft and material to discuss larger ideologies? box in turn uses those languages—the crafts of welding and joinery with the materials of steel and plywood—to take another step towards equitable conversation. this endeavor places itself within specific object-based contexts of the fd19 canon, and asks that, in return, the fd19 community tries to place itself within pedagogy- and criticism-based contexts.
as a result, box deals with issues of portraiture and biography by building on canonical languages and introducing personally significant variables to its aesthetics. this union reframes the other artifacts within it to be centered around emotionally and creatively productive collaboration—it brings a warmth to the project, and is the first encounter with ruggedness and friendliness. i use box to create a new language that is specific to my dp but legible to the rest of the fd19 community; in this manner, it is building off the contextual skills we have developed as a group over our years together. it acts primarily as the gateway to the larger thematic conversations of artifacts 314-520 (LSP), but doesn’t shy away from participating in those conversations on its own. the construction of box prioritized the well-being of the studio and of its maker, making it a kind companion for the conclusion of artifacts 314-520 (LSP). it retains physical characteristics of the studios it has lived in, and glistens with some of graceful, supportive, intelligence, and courageous tenacity that fd19 has so gloriously shared with me.
at the end of the day, artifacts 314-520: Labor Politics in the Studio cares most about that cherished fd19 charisma. it is an homage to the lovely friends, makers, thinkers, advocates, people that make up this beloved community:
hannah b, harry c, clay c, becca f, anya g, makoto k, marc l, adrienne m, jacob m, max p, monel r, alicia w, jiusi â&#x20AC;&#x153;sisiâ&#x20AC;? zhang, hilary b, valeria b-r, tom c, dan c, alan c, kira d, haojun gong, soo joo, bea mandel, rowan m, jon n, elena r, rowan s-j, lotte w, irene w, ruby zhu, meg c, chris s, lothar w, marilyn g, jeff m, james r, ned s, and every other member of fd -- whether fd09 or fd21. their commitment to enduring and critically rebuilding art&design systems has made artifacts 314-520: Labor Politics in the Studio into the endeavor it is. each member of our community remains a source of advice, inspiration, and intellect, and they all demonstrate their criticality in different object-oriented realms. without the hard work of these peers, the topic of labor could not, and would not, exist; for that, i dedicate this entire collection to this family and all that it stands for.
artifact 319a, soft ground intaglio etching, 2019.
artifact 116, aquatint etching, 2019.
artifact 118, photo etching, 2019.
anya g + marc l @ metal shop
i stand , rather sit here now , with this summarizing document in hand and see that my inquiries and curiosities about labor, fd19, and productivity come from my experience with them. i would not be able to engage with these topics and entities as i do if they were not so intimately entangled with my lifeâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;which is a roundabout way to say that for every moment of critique, there has been a moment with immense potential for change. and maybe that change will be permanent and perfectly conceived / but even if it isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t, its critiques will also raise moments of productivity. the cycle of transformation will continue to roll onwards and upwardsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; and from knowing the fd19 community, who administrate and advocate for Change, there will always remain provocateurs and agents of decolonization. as long as this community remains...
fd19 family - non-denominational secret giving entity gathering @ 168 raccoons
bentlam fall18 @ gropius house
the following resources expand on my thoughts concerning: labor, neocolonialism, citizenship, pedagogy, metacognition, theory and history of art and design. for more readings , references , regards: “a project by group material.” art journal, vol. 50, no. 3, 1991, p. 38., doi:10.2307/777213. an example of temporal art that was translated well to written theory and explanation, allowing for it to exist without relying on visual art/culture for understanding. ahmed, sara. “strategic inefficiency.” feministkilljoys, 20 dec. 2018, feministkilljoys.com/2018/12/20/strategic-inefficiency/. how are institutions built to keep students’ complaints and issues from being resolved? a look into the role of administration in student health, as well as into the temporality of student/institution interactions. 42
alexander, amanda and manisha sharma. “(pre)determined occupations: the post-colonial hybridizing of identity and art forms in third world spaces.” the journal of social theory in art education, 2013, doi:10.7810/9780908912605_11. concerning authenticity and unions of culture and tradition. ambedkar, b. r. annihilation of caste. verso, 2016. essential background for the current anti-caste movement, specifically in response to mahatma gandhi’s beliefs in hindutva supremacy. ambedkar, b. r. riddles in hinduism. 2008. seminal text about the oppressive practices of post-colonization india. ashcroft, bill, et al. the empire writes back: theory and practice in post-colonial literatures. w. ross macdonald school resource services, 2011. a document regarding boundaries between theories and practices of decolonization. bhabha, homi. “the world and the home.” social text, no. 31/32, 1992, pp. 141–153. jstor, jstor, www.jstor.org/stable/466222. a discussion of homeliness and belonging. dubois, w. e.b. darkwater: voices from within the veil. classic press, 2013. a poetic examination of how systems of racial injustice operate and disguise themselves, and a call for reclamation of power. durrani, mariam and arjun shankar. “curiosity and education: a white paper”, center for curiosity. december 2013. a research focused document that is the basis for current pedagogies. “dr shashi tharoor mp - britain does owe reparations.” youtube, youtube, 14 july 2015, www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7cw7s0zxv4. an argument in favor of reparations to those affected by british colonialism -- compare to ta nehisi coates’s “case for reparations. helsinki design studio - in studio recipes for systemic change in studio: recipes for systemic change. helsinki design lab, www.helsinkidesignlab.org/instudio/. a reference ooking at how designers contribute to systemic change while within the field of design.
hess, janet berry. “imagining architecture ii: ‘treasure storehouses’ and constructions of asante regional hegemony”. africa today, volume 50, number 1, spring 2003, pp. 27-48 (article). architecture as indicator, perpetrator, and resistor to hegemony.
fd19 - good/bad chair @ provwash
turner, fred. “don’t be evil”. logic, 2017. technology and design as tools for both imperialism and decolonization. hulme, keri. the bone people. hodder and stoughton, 1985. novel exploring the roles of in-betweens in postcolonial diaspora and belonging to home/land/people. ilaiah, kancha. why i am not a hindu: a sudra critique of hindutva philosophy, culture and political economy. sage publications. a critique of hinduism, specifically questioning its caste divisions. lambert, tiffany. “trash aesthetics.” 2016. work from fd canon that discusses design with relation to postcolonial aesthetics and realities. mcdougall brandy nālani. the salt wind (ka makani paʻakai). kuleana ʻōiwi press, 2008. book of poetry on the post-colonial / brown - american diasporic life. “patriarchy over & out. discourse made manifest.” artleaks, 29 apr. 2019, art-leaks.org/2019/04/29/artleaks-gazette-5-patriarchy-over-out-discourse-made-manifest-now-online/. zine on intersectional activism that is taken from theory to practice roy, arundhati. the ministry of utmost happiness. vintage books, a division of penguin random house llc, 2018. novel exploring the indo-pakistani relationship through a postcolonial lens. 44
sāvarakara vināyaka dāmodara. selected works of veer savarkar. abhishek publications, 2007. more criticism of india and its contemporary political allegiance to hindutva ideologies. sheikh, simon. “circulation and withdrawal, part i: circulation.” e-flux, 2015, www.e-flux.com/journal/62/60945/circulation-and-withdrawal-part-i-circulation/. how art & opinion have become tools to recognize / reward social capital. taylor, astra. “against activism.” the baffler, 10 apr. 2017, thebaffler.com/ salvos/against-activism. on the role that activism can take in contemporary art/social justice work. what is the difference between being, feeling like, acting as, or seen as an activist? wilentz, gay, et al. “postcolonial / postmodern: what’s in a wor(l)d?” college english, vol. 56, no. 1, 1994, p. 71., doi:10.2307/378221. specifically looking at kwame anthony appiah’s writings on the contrasts between postcolonial and postmodern in visual and literary arts. woolard, caroline et al. “making and being”. bfamfaphd, 2018. book written by designer/pedagogues who examine how objects are produced by systems, rather than the objects alone.
fd19 in spring 17 - spy cam box by lotte w @ provwash
artifact 329, scan of copper plate etching, 2019.
artifact 806, latex print, 2018.
with love, s
artifacts 314-520: Labor Politics in the Studio a degree endeavor by s suryanarayanan in spring 2019