The Object vs. Experience Debate: Exploring the Implications of "Invasively Meaningful" Design

List member Nathan Jones replied to Monday’s letter, Abandon the fetish of the thing (shared with Nathan’s permission):

Object vs experience is an interesting dichotomy, but on some level, to me, feels false. All of the experiences he described required the objects and, often, instead of allowing the viewer to experience the object through their own goals and experiences. The object was manipulated to interject a sense of narrative/meaning onto it. Which also is what museum's do (or try to). And while the claim that the object isn't central feels good in an age where storytelling is the new meta, the object and the availability of "meaningful" interaction still seem absolutely central to the crafting of a designed experience. I think the experience design counter-argument would be that you couldn't have the experience without the individual, but the same holds true for the object.

I agree with Nathan and, at the same time, this got me thinking about how people like Abraham who have a persuasive point of view may simplify things to illustrate a point or elicit a degree of thought on the audience’s part that they might not otherwise arrive at. (A few other readers wrote in to gently disagree while also expressing their appreciation for Abraham’s framing.)

Nathan continues:

On some level the experience design concept seems to be operating as a solution space for one user. A museum with a mission of "change Sally's life?"It also seems like maybe there is something to dig into with the level of research performed being key to the value of the experience designed. The claim almost seemed to be that the designer can know the person better than they know themselves (via their authority as researcher) and were thereby capable and encouraged to create an experience that was invasively meaningful. This reminds me of critiques of historic curatorial/museum privilege/paternalism.

“Invasively meaningful” is a captivating phrase, and I’d love to hear what you all think about the idea of a designer/researcher being… intruders (?) in some way. Of course, the person’s voluntary participation seems like a kind of consent, but if the experience has real impact on the person in an unexpected way — if it has a profound impact — that can be unwelcome.

I was also interested to see Nathan using referencing “solution space”, so I asked him to share more about this. He says (emphasis mine):

On some level the experience design concept seems to be operating as a solution space for one user. By this I mean that experience designers are focusing on generating experiences that fit with their institutional goals of audience engagement. The person being approached is viewed as a user in the design process. Whether she has goals associated with the experience she will eventually participate in seems to be viewed as irrelevant. Instead, the designers have a goal of creating a moment of engagement for her that's transformative and rooted in their process. That process continues the tradition of treating people as cultural consumers whose lives have a void waiting to be filled by institutional offerings. The difference is that the experience designed institution claims their product is for a single person and whose evaluation metrics include life changing upheaval (leaving partners, careers, etc.) instead of the milder engagement forms most museums are content to use.

I don’t disagree. Maybe Odyssey Works benefits from a safe assumption that their audience (of one) has a singular goal, which is rooted in transformation and trust in the designers’ works. Museums' audiences are obviously more varied.

What do you think?

As always, reply to this email to let me know your thoughts or leave a comment on the blog.

Kyle