Jarrett Fuller: Hey, wel­come to Scratching the Surface. I’m Jarrett Fuller and this is my pod­cast about design crit­i­cism and prac­tice. This week’s episode is a tru­ly fas­ci­nat­ing con­ver­sa­tion with Shannon Mattern. Shannon is a pro­fes­sor in the media stud­ies depart­ment at the New School in New York City where she teach­es cours­es on a real­ly diverse range of sub­jects includ­ing maps, infor­ma­tion infra­struc­ture, urban intel­li­gence, and cities. Her research inter­ests are equal­ly diverse and include top­ics like media spaces, archives, libraries, and infra­struc­ture. She’s writ­ten mul­ti­ple books and writes a reg­u­lar long-form col­umn for Places, the online archi­tec­ture and urban­ism journal. 

In this con­ver­sa­tion, Shannon and I talk about media stud­ies, what it is, and what that means and how she got into it. And we also talk about the­o­ry and how to con­nect the­o­ry to prac­tice, and con­nect­ing the­o­ret­i­cal texts with phys­i­cal arti­facts. And how design and archi­tec­ture and media are dif­fer­ent ways of solid­i­fy­ing par­tic­u­lar ide­olo­gies. You know, media and media the­o­ry is a top­ic that comes up on the pod­cast a few times, and I’ve men­tioned find­ing a lot of rela­tion­ships between media the­o­ry and design the­o­ry? So I was real­ly excit­ed to talk to Shannon about these top­ics and see what kind of par­al­lels we could find. And as you’ll hear, this was a real­ly wide-ranging con­ver­sa­tion. Shannon is just so smart and this episode is just real­ly packed with wis­dom. I feel like I learned so much, and as I tell her at the end of the con­ver­sa­tion, my head was just spin­ning with new ideas and ques­tions and thoughts. So I think that this will be a con­ver­sa­tion that I return to a few times and one that I think you’ll get a lot out of as well. 

Remember if you’re a fan of the pod­cast and want to help sup­port it, you can become a mem­ber for $5 a month or $50 a year to receive an exclu­sive month­ly newslet­ter with addi­tion­al bonus con­tent and episode pre­views. Memberships real­ly help keep the pod­cast going and I just real­ly appre­ci­ate all of your sup­port, if you’re able to sup­port that. But, for right now, here is my con­ver­sa­tion with Shannon Mattern. 

Jarrett Fuller: I want to start at a very base, prob­a­bly over­ly sim­plis­tic lev­el, because you’re a pro­fes­sor in the media stud­ies depart­ment here at The New School. And so I kin­da wan­na start with what is media stud­ies? Like what does that actu­al­ly mean? 

Shannon Mattern: Okay, well that’s a very good question.

Fuller: Is that too…is that too weird to start that way?

Mattern: No, not at all. And there are still peo­ple I guess in more tra­di­tion­al uni­ver­si­ties and more tra­di­tion­al dis­ci­plines who don’t real­ly even regard it as kind of a legit­i­mate field of study. So it’s rel­a­tive­ly recent. It kind of coa­lesced as an academic—I would­n’t even call it a dis­ci­pline, it’s more of a field—around the time that Marshall McLuhan kind of became a big pub­lic fig­ure. So rec­og­niz­ing that media are not just kind of neu­tral sub­strates that car­ry con­tent. That they actu­al­ly play, as a graph­ic design­er or a design­er in any field would know, that the mate­ri­als, the forms used to con­vey ideas are just as potent as the actu­al infor­ma­tion and con­tent and data that you stuff into them. 

Fuller: Okay, so two ques­tions now, based on that. So then how do you define… I guess we’re even going to go even more…

Mattern: Oh sure.

Fuller: …sim­ply. What does media— How do you define media, then? 

Mattern: Well I’m going to give a deeply frus­trat­ing answer to that, too! Because like again—

Fuller: The ques­tions are just gonna get more and more—

Mattern: That’s okay. We can go deep­er, and [count the?] tur­tles all the way down. 

Fuller: Okay.

Mattern: So again, if you go to a more tra­di­tion­al dis­ci­pline, more tra­di­tion­al type of media stud­ies or com­mu­ni­ca­tion stud­ies pro­gram, they might be look­ing at things like radio, tele­vi­sion, film…and in more con­tem­po­rary decades they’ll look at dif­fer­ent types of kin­da Internet— Sorry, not Internet. But yes, you could look at the Internet but I was going to say inter­ac­tive projects.

Fuller: Right, right. Okay.

Mattern: Social media, for instance. 

Fuller: Okay. Okay.

Mattern: But, again, if you kind of the McLuhan tra­di­tion, and the much more capa­cious way peo­ple think about media today in a lot of the more pro­gres­sive pro­grams, media can be pret­ty much anything. 

Fuller: Yeah.

Mattern: And this again was McLuhan’s influence. 

Fuller: Yeah. Okay. So are you very much a… Is a McLuhan…kind of a touch­stone in this field of study for everyone?

Mattern: Yeah. I think he is, I would­n’t call him a taboo sub­ject, but he is some­one who is a name that shall not be named in many cas­es because he’s regard­ed as a…um…a not ter­ri­bly rig­or­ous schol­ar. He’s more known for like throw­ing probes out there and see­ing if they stick than actu­al­ly pre­sent­ing things he could sub­stan­ti­ate. Yeah.

Fuller: That was my hunch. I’m a— I mean I’ll just… Yeah, I’m a big fan of McLuhan. I have found so much kind of influ­ence, or the way I think about my work as a design­er? from him. But as I’ve start­ed to dab­ble more in read­ing kind of where you work, sens­ing a bit of a con­flict­ing rela­tion­ship there. So I don’t want to just be like, oh I love Marshall McLuhan and then…you know, kin­da ruin this conversation. 

Mattern: No. No, total­ly. I mean there are some peo­ple who, and this is again one of my many frus­tra­tions with the acad­e­my, who would judge some­one if they pro­claimed that they love Marshall McLuhan. But, whether or not you sub­scribe to his ideas or regard him to be kind of a rig­or­ous methodologist—which he prob­a­bly wasn’t—I think still some of the real­ly provoca­tive ideas he put out into the intel­lec­tu­al envi­ron­ment have informed a lot of peo­ple’s work, whether they will rec­og­nize it or artic­u­late it or not. 

Fuller: So how… I’m gonna make a lit­tle bit of a turn. How does one…get into this, or how did you…find your­self study­ing this and work­ing in this area?

Mattern: Well, I think the fact that I think I’m known by a lot of peo­ple for writ­ing about real­ly diverse sub­jects. And I think that comes from my back­ground. I start­ed out in high school think­ing I want­ed to be an engi­neer. So I did intern­ships in engi­neer­ing like aero­space and nuclear engi­neer­ing, just because that was kind of present in the uni­ver­si­ty town I grew up in. And I was good at math and sci­ence, so that’s what I should do. 

Then I want­ed to go to med­ical school, so I was a chem­istry major. But I always took a lit­er­a­ture course as an—I guess I could say an escape from the math and sci­ence every semes­ter and real­ized that that was where my great­est plea­sure was. So I switched to become a lit­er­a­ture major. And then ulti­mate­ly real­ized that, as I men­tioned before, I was just as much inter­est­ed as…the shape of the book. The fact that these Norton antholo­gies I had that were print­ed on this like onion­skin paper. And how did that shape my inter­ac­tion with the text? There was a cer­tain kind of affect that I brought to the read­ing process when the mate­ri­al­i­ty of the book was some­thing that I was so much ingrained with my recep­tion of those par­tic­u­lar texts. So that’s ulti­mate­ly where I start­ed to real­ize that I became just as much inter­est­ed in the media as the mes­sage, as you could say, and then ulti­mate­ly I did a PhD in media stud­ies, but even there I was kind of all—maybe for­tu­itous­ly all over the place. I took cours­es in urban plan­ning, urban his­to­ry, archi­tec­ture history… 

Fuller: Yeah. I wan­na talk about the PhD a lit­tle bit, because I did a lit­tle bit of read­ing on that. I have two ques­tions. First will be a hope­ful­ly kind of quick ques­tion and we can move on. As I was research­ing you I saw that your advis­er was Neil Postman. Is that the Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death Neil Postman?

Mattern: Yes. Yes.

Fuller: Okay. What was that like?

Mattern: What was that like? I’m not sure about this, but I think I was the last dis­ser­ta­tion defense he attend­ed before he passed away a year lat­er. So I was at the very end of his career. And his par­tic­u­lar areas of research I would say weren’t kind of top­i­cal­ly per­fect­ly aligned with mine. But his sen­si­bil­i­ty, his way of being a pub­lic aca­d­e­m­ic, a pub­lic intel­lec­tu­al. His per­sona. The way he was in the world and the way he kind of prac­ticed his phi­los­o­phy was some­thing that I did­n’t see with a lot of oth­er aca­d­e­mics. And as I as a grad­u­ate stu­dent try­ing to fig­ure out like what kind of a schol­ar do I want to be some­day, the way he was in the world was some­thing that real­ly stood out to me. 

Fuller: Oh, that’s inter­est­ing. Okay. I want to come back to that because that’s a top­ic that I’m real­ly inter­est­ing in but I want to talk about the PhD itself because it’s called Building Ideologies? was the— 

Mattern: Oh, yeah. I would pre­fer to ignore and have the world for­get my dis­ser­ta­tion but yes, I wrote my dis­ser­ta­tion on architecture. 

Fuller: Okay, well the rea­son I ask that is… I obvi­ous­ly did not read it. I don’t know—

Mattern: Please don’t. 

Fuller: —total­ly what it’s about. But that title was fas­ci­nat­ing to me because I’ve start­ed to define design, and espe­cial­ly graph­ic design, as kind of… This phrase I’ve been using late­ly is design is ide­ol­o­gy made arti­fact? in a lot of ways, and build­ing ide­ol­o­gy” sound­ed like a very similar… 

Mattern: Yeah.

Fuller: And so I was just curi­ous. I mean, obvi­ous­ly if you don’t want to talk about it we don’t have to talk about it. 

Mattern: Sure, sure.

Fuller: But kind of what did that look like, or what was that research like? 

Mattern: Well, I had dis­cov­ered in grad­u­ate school that I was real­ly inter­est­ed in archi­tec­ture and space as a medi­um. Again you can see kind of that McLuhan influ­ence as well. And I want­ed to find a great case study. And it just hap­pened at the time that Rem Koolhaas was cho­sen to design the Seattle Public Library. So I went to Seattle, sat in on a lot of the design process, looked through all the doc­u­ments relat­ed to the design process. 

So I was just as much inter­est­ed in how that build­ing came into being. So the gerund of build­ing. So the act, the verb of build­ing. So how he did all this nego­ti­a­tion between dif­fer­ent stake­hold­ers, city offi­cials, design­ers, fit­ting into the con­text of Seattle and its kind of rise through Amazon, and Microsoft, for instance. 

Fuller: Yeah.

Mattern: So I looked at how you essen­tial­ly through that design process nego­ti­at­ed kind of your ideological—not your, but many dif­fer­ent stake­hold­ers and publics’ ide­o­log­i­cal standpoints. 

Fuller: How did that influence…or, maybe influ­ence isn’t the right word, but I’m curi­ous how that kind of research and that project end­ed up set­ting you up for the career you had. And have, and it comes back to the very first answer that you gave about media not being this kind of neu­tral thing. And it sounds like you were look­ing at that very lit­er­al­ly in how it’s affect­ing space. 

Mattern: Right. Right. So in that research I looked at for exam­ple how the mate­r­i­al you choose to make a mod­el out of…

Fuller: Oh, interesting.

Mattern: …or the degree of final­i­ty or rough­ness of a ren­der­ing could com­plete­ly shape the nature of a pub­lic debate. If you show a par­tic­u­lar pub­lic— Like, you have like a pub­lic forum, and you show them like some CGI ima­grey, they’re gonna say like, Well you’ve already fig­ured it out. What do you want us to say?” So just see­ing how the choice of modes of rep­re­sen­ta­tion, the media it’s pre­sent­ed through or on, lit­er­al­ly shaped how the whole dis­course was con­duct­ed, essentially. 

So how that set me up for the career that I have, I mean that’s a big sto­ry but I’d say that again, draw­ing on the literature—so not only like the pub­lished work but also the talk­ing to peo­ple in mul­ti­ple dis­ci­plines. And I talked to archi­tects, I talked to city plan­ners, I talked to the peo­ple who worked at the load­ing dock at these buildings.

Fuller: Oh, interesting.

Mattern: So get­ting inter­est­ed in again, how all those dif­fer­ent dis­cours­es and needs kind of have to con­verge and pro­duce a build­ing at the end that tries to sat­is­fy as many of these peo­ple. But also just rec­og­niz­ing the dif­fi­cul­ty and the real­ly amaz­ing chal­lenge of cast­ing your net wide and doing research on a par­tic­u­lar top­ic, and real­iz­ing how any spe­cif­ic designed object, you can trace its ten­ta­cles out incred­i­bly far and touch on the dis­ci­pli­nary knowl­edges and prac­tices of so many dif­fer­ent people. 

Fuller: I had read in prepar­ing for this anoth­er inter­view that you had giv­en and said that… I think I’m get­ting this sort of right, that post-PhD you were look­ing not just at aca­d­e­m­ic jobs but also at actu­al design jobs.

Mattern: Yes.

Fuller: What types of jobs would those have been? Or what was that kind of alter­nate career that you could’ve had?

Mattern: Well, I was doing a post-doc in art his­to­ry at the University of Pennsylvania. So that was anoth­er kind of for­tu­itous thing that hap­pened, because I was in this PhD in media stud­ies and had writ­ten about archi­tec­ture, a mod­ern archi­tec­ture his­to­ri­an expressed inter­est in work­ing with me, which is how I end­ed up in art his­to­ry. But, as the next step, I real­ized again—even then, which was almost fif­teen years ago or so. I real­ized that the aca­d­e­m­ic job mar­ket was already pret­ty pre­car­i­ous at that time, and con­sid­ered both for prac­ti­cal rea­sons that maybe I should look at oth­er options. But also because I think I would’ve been…equally hap­py. And for­tu­nate­ly, teach­ing in a school like The New School where they do val­ue mul­ti­ple forms as of— They rec­og­nize that schol­ar­ship is not just pub­lish­ing books in fire­walled jour­nals?, but actu­al­ly doing stuff in the world. I think that this has allowed me the job that I ulti­mate­ly got and am grate­ful for, allow­ing me to bring together…to con­verge those dif­fer­ent path­ways that I had carved out for myself. 

So I had thought about maybe get­ting an M.Arch actu­al­ly, for a while.

Fuller: Oh, okay. I mean, I was gonna ask like, was that a possibility?

Mattern: That was a pos­si­bil­i­ty. And then I did an intern­ship at an archi­tec­ture firm, was like nope, I’m not going to be doing that. I had total­ly glam­or­ized the day-to-day life there. But also, I had con­sid­ered work­ing in kind of not-for-profits or places like—I’m not say­ing I specif­i­cal­ly pur­sued these insti­tu­tions, but places like the Van Alen Institute, or the Architectural League, or orga­ni­za­tions like that. 

Fuller: Okay. I mean, I asked that ques­tion com­plete­ly self­ish­ly because I feel like that’s a ten­sion that I feel in my own career, and it’s kind of why I went to grad­u­ate school, was feel­ing like it was one or the oth­er and not want­i­ng to take one or the oth­er? And I think still now, after that, I still feel like I’m kind of strad­dling both of those in a lot of ways and want to be both a prac­ti­tion­er, a design­er, but also in acad­e­mia. And it’s a ques­tion that comes up on the pod­cast a lot, and even just when I talk to stu­dents who are kind of inter­est­ed in these things, feel­ing that if they go too far into the the­o­ry that it almost par­a­lyzes their mak­ing, because it’s too in their head or they get stuck in these ide­olo­gies and don’t want to con­tribute to it. So I don’t know if that’s a ques­tion. Do you know—

Mattern: Well it’s someth—

Fuller: Do you know what I mean there?

Mattern: Yeah. It’s some­thing I’ve thought about, too, because on occa­sion I will teach like our intro­duc­to­ry the­o­ry class. And there’s always, even if my class­es are kind of project-based I always incor­po­rate a lot of his­to­ry and the­o­ry. And over the course my near­ly twenty-year career, the way I teach the­o­ry has evolved pret­ty dramatically. 

Fuller: Okay.

Mattern: In part because my own rela­tion­ship to it has evolved as well. I used to be intim­i­dat­ed by it. I used to kind of deify these peo­ple, pre­sum­ing that they were pre­sent­ing some gospel that I just had to work and work and work to try to under­stand so that I could like, put on their glass­es and see the world through their lens­es. But ulti­mate­ly I real­ized that these are—and I’ve writ­ten this else­where, too—like, these are fal­li­ble peo­ple, often ego­ma­ni­acs, often real­ly bad writ­ers. And that’s why I can’t under­stand it. So it’s not to give up on them, too quick­ly. You put in the work to try to under­stand what they’re say­ing. But not to regard their work as gospel. Essentially to think of it as tools to think with. And that’s how I try to desacral­ize the­o­ry in my class­es, to help stu­dents think these are tools to be crit­i­cal, inter­est­ing frame­works that you can apply to the work that you’re doing. But they should not have the pow­er to become par­a­lyz­ing forces. 

Fuller: Right. I love that. That’s a great way to kind of phrase that. How does that kin­da play out in your own work, both as a teacher, but then also as some­one who’s doing your own research? How do you start to kind of think about how those things come together?

Mattern: How the­o­ry comes together?

Fuller: Yeah, how the­o­ry kind of plays into the work that you’re doing, whether you’re teach­ing it and kind of show­ing that these are not per­fect themes but then also as you’re fur­ther­ing your own schol­ar­ly research? How do you fit those in? 

Mattern: Right. I mean, some peo­ple when I’ll go give a talk some­where, they’ll intro­duce me as a media the­o­rist. And I will nev­er reject that. I will nev­er want to embar­rass some­body but hon­est­ly that label just does not…feel right for me. 

Fuller: Okay.

Mattern: Because I have just always assumed that like call­ing one­self a media the­o­rist implies…there’s a cer­tain kind of con­no­ta­tion to it that just does­n’t feel like it suits me very well. 

Fuller: So what do you—how would you…define—

Mattern: I don’t even know. Actually I much pre­fer when, some­times when I’ve giv­en a talk, peo­ple will say like, I don’t even know what to call you.” Like, I love that! That’s perfect. 

Fuller: Okay.

Mattern: But, any­way. How do I nego­ti­ate these things in my own prac­tice? And I think part of it is that some­times you might be asked you know, what’s your the­o­ret­i­cal frame­work, or what’s your method­ol­o­gy? I have got­ten real­ly com­fort­able with the fact that I don’t sub­scribe to the school of any par­tic­u­lar the­o­rist. When I write an arti­cle, I am not writ­ing it in the Bourdieuian frame. Or I am not kind of doing a Foucauldian analy­sis of any­thing. I start with the mate­r­i­al, with a designed object in many cas­es. And as I inves­ti­gate it do you know, a whole mix of dif­fer­ent meth­ods, dis­course analy­ses, kind of stud­ied mate­r­i­al objects them­selves, inter­view peo­ple often. I have read enough the­o­ry to know when oh, this is real­ly where kind of some…I don’t know, Simondon can become inter­est­ing or use­ful. So I allow them to kind of emerge when the mate­r­i­al actu­al­ly calls for it, and not make them kind of this per­va­sive, oppres­sive force through­out the entire thing that I’m think­ing of writ­ing about. 

Fuller: Yeah. I have— Okay. I have like five dif­fer­ent ques­tions, based on that answer, or like five dif­fer­ent thoughts that I want to try to form into a ques­tion, because I’m… I’m tak­ing what you’re say­ing and I’m apply­ing it…I’m kind of putting it into a graph­ic design con­text and think­ing how that could apply in graph­ic design. And I’m think­ing about two things specif­i­cal­ly that may or may not be con­nect­ed and this might be a dead end. I’ll just…warn you now. 

But one thing that that makes me think about is…the graph­ic design pro­fes­sion almost…this is an over­gen­er­al­iza­tion but, can often default to a kind of anti-theoretical approach, or kind of tries to keep that away? With a focus on mak­ing or on aes­thet­ics, or on kind of what the actu­al end prod­uct is like, with­out any kind of the­o­ret­i­cal rig­or about why these things exist, the cul­ture that they came out of, or are put into. Whether in a con­tem­po­rary con­text or in history—often, design his­to­ry class­es don’t real­ly talk about those things. It’s just…here’s a series of artifacts. 

Mattern: Mm hm.

Fuller: But then on the flip­side when there is some sort of the­o­ret­i­cal dis­course in graph­ic design—and I hear this a lot from my stu­dents and from lis­ten­ers of the podcast—it’s hard to under­stand, it’s too dense, and then they don’t see how it has any con­nec­tion to the work. To the actu­al mak­ing, to the actu­al arti­facts. And so, I guess if I were to put this into a ques­tion, and I don’t know if I can… I’d love to hear you talk a lit­tle bit about how these kind of the­o­ret­i­cal texts can be applied to the objects. Because you talked about look­ing at the objects first. For a design stu­dent, for ex—like let’s just make it real­ly sim­ple. For a design stu­dent who’s inter­est­ed in these things but does­n’t see any kind of con­nec­tion, how would you kind of help them begin or start to see how those things come together? 

Mattern: Well that’s a big ped­a­gog­i­cal chal­lenge. And I think that—

Fuller: I’m ask­ing because it’s like…what I want to know how to do, too, I think in a lot of ways. 

Mattern: Yeah. I think also I’ve maybe also come to real­ize that there’s a rite of pas­sage, a peri­od of strug­gle that you kind of have to go through. 

Fuller: Yeah. Yeah.

Mattern: You have to go through kin­da almost like the fetishiz­ing theory…

Fuller: Right, right. Oh yeah, I’ve been there.

Mattern: …the not know­ing [you have a client phase?]. And then you become…kind of pro— Disillusionment sounds like a bad thing. I think it’d be a real­ly lib­er­at­ing thing. So I feel like there’s no easy way, no easy kind of ped­a­gog­i­cal strat­e­gy that can help you take your grad­u­ate stu­dents or undergraduates…they do have to read the the­o­ret­i­cal texts. And then I think it’s…this is the chal­lenge, though. Because a lot of folks, they have those four years as an under­grad, or maybe two or three years as a grad stu­dent. Then maybe they don’t have a lot of oppor­tu­ni­ties to read the­o­ry, do read­ing groups or have a group dis­cus­sion about them after that. I had the lux­u­ry of being in these types of envi­ron­ments for twen­ty years or so. So I can allow my think­ing in rela­tion to the­o­ry to evolve. 

But, I wish there were a way to kind of com­press that rite of pas­sage you have to go through. But I think if you can plant a seed, that it becomes some­thing that peo­ple want to engage with in their pro­fes­sion­al careers, I think they will even­tu­al­ly get to that lib­er­at­ing feel­ing that this is a tool I can use and not like…a uni­form I have to wear and play a par­tic­u­lar role, liv­ing through this par­tic­u­lar theory. 

Fuller: This con­nects nice— This might be a good way to come back to when you were talk­ing about Neil Postman and kind of being a pub­lic schol­ar kind of writ­ing for an audi­ence. Because that’s anoth­er ques­tion that comes up a lot in these con­ver­sa­tions. Especially when I talk to archi­tec­ture crit­ics who are writ­ing either in kind of dai­ly news­pa­pers or mag­a­zines, they’re not writ­ing for oth­er archi­tects in a lot of ways? And this always comes up because so much of graph­ic design writ­ing is for the pro­fes­sion? And I’m very inter­est­ed in how one can write rig­or­ous­ly about a pro­fes­sion for peo­ple who are not in the pro­fes­sion?, but also not dumb it down that the peo­ple in the profession…scoff at it?

Mattern: Yeah. Well this might lead me to go back and add anoth­er sec­tion to that ques­tion you asked before as to how to teach this type of rela­tion­ship to the­o­ry. I think also it’s a selec­tion of the arti­facts and texts that you expose stu­dents to. So one thing I have kind of found has worked real­ly well over the years is that if you do want them to read the heavy the­o­ry, you pair it then with an appli­ca­tion text. And then some­thing from the pop­u­lar press so they actu­al­ly see this is not just some­thing that is liv­ing float­ing around in the ether in some rar­efied realm. This actu­al­ly applies in some type of actu­al design prac­tice in the world. Not only in kind of a para-academic text, but then you actu­al­ly see it applied, even though some­thing in The New York Times might not actu­al­ly evoke the name of Althusser or Marx, they will have seen the pro­gres­sion of abstrac­tion to con­crete­ness. So I think that pair­ing of read­ings and exam­ples can help peo­ple to make the tran­si­tion to see the applic­a­bil­i­ty of the­o­ret­i­cal and crit­i­cal con­cepts in every­day practice. 

Fuller: And so was this some­thing that was appeal­ing to you when you were doing your PhD, and even now that you’re writ­ing not just for acad­e­mia, but that your writ­ing is out in the world for oth­er peo­ple to read? Was that a con­scious deci­sion I guess is kin­da the question.

Mattern: Well maybe it was in the back of my mind, because I was con­sid­er­ing you know, non-academic careers. So I did think about engag­ing with dif­fer­ent publics in dif­fer­ent ways. But it’s part­ly in a way that the acad­e­my is set up, in that you are dis­cour­aged from doing any type of non-academic type—traditionally aca­d­e­m­ic work until you get tenure. So it’s something—actually I start­ed to write with non-academic pub­li­ca­tions even before then. But I did feel like I had to do my duty and play the whole peer review game. Which I hard­ly ever play any­more because I don’t think the peer review has a whole lot of val­ue to add, at least in my expe­ri­ence. I’m sure peo­ple will dis­agree with that. Some have had some great expe­ri­ences. But in the end, the wait, the…rigamarole you have to go through, I don’t know is that much more valu­able than the real­ly fan­tas­tic rela­tion­ship I have with my edi­tors at Places Journal, or when I work with the Harvard Design Magazine. That back and forth I have with my edi­tor’s some­thing you do not get in a peer-reviewed jour­nal, and it’s ulti­mate­ly much more reward­ing because they have you trans­late your maybe abstruse ideas into con­crete kind of artic­u­la­tions that a gen­er­al pub­lic or an informed pub­lic can understand.

Fuller: Yeah. How does that shape…or does it shape at all, your own research or your top­ics, or how you talk about your top­ics, that act of work­ing with an edi­tor for pub­lish­ing in Places instead of a peer review? Does that actu­al­ly change the research process at all?

Mattern: Yeah. I would say so. And part of it is that if you’re doing like an aca­d­e­m­ic research project you typ­i­cal­ly spend just… You’re doing your empir­i­cal part look­ing at the actu­al sup­posed top­ic if you’re doing a case study of a designed object or some­thing. But you also are spend­ing a huge time doing kind of a lit­er­a­ture review and then fram­ing a lit­er­a­ture review, look­ing at who has said what about this, what the­o­ret­i­cal frame­works are used, what meth­ods have pre­vi­ous schol­ars used. I knew that work to some degree, but that is also the stuff that I keep in the back of my head, and it influ­enced my writ­ing. And maybe I’ll put it in a foot­note. Or maybe I’ll say in the mid­dle of an arti­cle you know, this actually…to use a canon­i­cal exam­ple like, Hannah Arendt can help us think through this idea so let’s talk about her for three sen­tences. But I think if I were writ­ing an aca­d­e­m­ic arti­cle that would all be fore­ground­ed and I would spend a lot more effort kind of mas­sag­ing that work and set­ting— It takes you so much set­ting up before you actu­al­ly get to your top­ic in aca­d­e­m­ic writing. 

Fuller: I mean, the rea­son I ask that is…because I’ve been think­ing a lot about… Well, I think every­body’s talk­ing a lot about this kind of idea of fake news and this has come up on the pod­cast a lot and it’s the exam­ple that I to go to because I think it’s real­ly easy? That the tech­nol­o­gy indus­try I feel like is real­ly talk­ing about that more, and real­iz­ing that things like Facebook—and I worked at Facebook for a while, so I maybe am espe­cial­ly con­scious to think­ing about this? And I think that fits direct­ly into what you were talk­ing about at the very first ques­tion, of these dif­fer­ent medi­ums have bias­es and are not neu­tral? And I think it’s just as much a design prob­lem? And…I…I don’t know how…how design­ers can start to talk about that in an edu­cat­ed and informed way of what are we as peo­ple who maybe have often thought of our­selves as just dec­o­ra­tors or as just the visu­al fin­ish at the end, real­iz­ing that that’s not all…? That’s not just what we do? And that we have some complicit…

Mattern: Yeah.

Fuller: …in some of these things? And I’m curi­ous if you have thoughts on kind of… And we don’t don’t have to lim­it it to fake news or Facebook, but to the role of design in all of these things that we’re talk­ing about. And how the act of design­ing and the act of cre­at­ing these arti­facts are push­ing par­tic­u­lar ide­olo­gies, or are maybe kind of being invis­i­bly fur­ther­ing ide­olo­gies. [crosstalk] Do you know what I mean—that was a real­ly weird way to phrase that ques­tion. Do you know what I mean? 

Mattern: Sure. No, no. Yeah, I under­stand what you’re get­ting at. And ide­ol­o­gy is def­i­nite­ly a core part of the kind of things I think about. But I think I often pair it with epis­te­mol­o­gy, too. So like, how we know what we know. And that’s a lot of my work, is look­ing at how design at dif­fer­ent scales… So I look at kind of the design arti­fact like the screen, how use the real estate, to use an ide­o­log­i­cal term—the real estate of the screen, to the medi­at­ed object—the gad­get itself, to right now I’m work­ing on a project on fur­ni­ture. So how we design media fur­ni­ture in an archi­tec­ture scale, and the urban scale, and kind of the infra­struc­tur­al scale. And how if you think about each of those as kin­da of designed objects or sys­tems, that they have the capac­i­ty to non-neutrally shape the way we know things. So they par­tic­i­pate, these objects actu­al­ly par­tic­i­pate in what and how we know things in the world. 

Fuller: Right. 

And of course knowl­edge has, in Foucauldian terms, like, is pow­er at the same time so that’s where ide­ol­o­gy comes into play nec­es­sar­i­ly in all cas­es, too. So yeah, I do think that whether it’s design­ing par­tic­u­lar inter­faces, you know, the way we design bal­lots, the way we design online forms we fill out. The fact that you know, even the box­es we have to check, the user agree­ments we just…you know, auto­mat­i­cal­ly check the box. These are either encour­ag­ing kind of con­tem­pla­tion or just rote kind of scan­ning at par­tic­u­lar infor­ma­tion. So there are lots of dif­fer­ent design dis­ci­plines that can kind of—their forces con­verge in mak­ing things kind of either trans­par­ent or opaque knowl­edge. Things that you just glide through or things that’re actu­al­ly worth contemplating. 

Fuller: What I’m inter­est­ed in is where in the design process those types of ques­tions are raised. And I know you’re not a design­er, but I’m curi­ous as some­one who is on the oth­er side and who has spent a lot of time study­ing this, when are those quest—when should those ques­tions be asked? Because it seems like for me, and I don’t mean for this to be so neg­a­tive. But it’s after the fact, a lot of times? And how do you start to bring in these ques­tions into the design process? You know what I mean?

Mattern: Yeah. That’s a real­ly chal­leng­ing process. And in part because of the way I know a lot of design, actu­al prac­ti­cal appli­ca­tions, are kind of sequenced where you’re trad­ing things off to dif­fer­ent teams or dif­fer­ent teams are work­ing togeth­er. It can be real­ly dif­fi­cult to have this kind of ide­al­ized way of respon­si­bly, eth­i­cal­ly prac­tic­ing design. And then how that can actu­al­ly play out in a real kind of com­mer­cial set­ting, for instance.

Fuller: Yeah. Right. 

Mattern: But for exam­ple, if you are design­ing an app that is pro­mot­ing kind of I don’t know, mar­gin­al­ized pop­u­la­tions’ use of pub­lic ser­vices, for instance. You might say well we real­ly need to think [indis­tinct] with our graph­ic and inter­ac­tion design­ers about how to make this intel­li­gi­ble and seam­less, etc. At the same time, per­haps you should be ask­ing the ques­tions like why an app, you know. Is that actu­al choice of modal­i­ty the best thing? So it’s kind of one of those infra­struc­tur­al recur­sion type of ques­tions. So, it’s not just a mat­ter of kind of inte­grat­ing these eth­i­cal and crit­i­cal ques­tions into the sen­si­bil­i­ties of one design­er. The fact that each kind of dif­fer­ent capac­i­ty of design is so inte­grat­ed with all the oth­ers to pro­duce a designed thing at the end, means that I don’t know where you actu­al­ly insert the ques­tion, it’s just that every­body should be ask­ing it from the very begin­ning of the project.

Fuller: Right, right. I have a com­plete­ly dif­fer­ent, com­plete­ly oth­er ques­tion that I’ve been think­ing about through­out this whole con­ver­sa­tion, and you’ve used metaphors of real estate and archi­tec­ture in talk­ing about kind of dig­i­tal spaces also, and I think that comes back to kind of your ear­ly research. I’m curi­ous, do you see…parallels in how the phys­i­cal world has been built up and the way dig­i­tal medi­a’s being built up? You know, are the ways of think­ing, the ways of inter­act­ing, the ways of com­mu­ni­cat­ing the pol­i­tics of the phys­i­cal envi­ron­ment, are those being echoed pret­ty close­ly online?

Mattern: Uh, I would­n’t say ter­ri­bly close­ly. It’s not as if we can find kind of mor­pholo­gies we can say like, look at this par­tic­u­lar build­ing and say, Oh look, it’s the Internet writ large,” for instance. 

Fuller: Yeah.

Mattern: Because so many of our cities and our towns pre­ex­ist­ed, or kind of pre­dat­ed the rise of dig­i­tal tech­nolo­gies. That said, dig­i­tal tech­nolo­gies have allowed for an entire­ly new form of urban­ism. I would­n’t say entire­ly new, but a some­what nov­el form of urban­ism, like data-driven urban­ism, build­ing tab­u­la rasa as we’re doing in a lot of kin­da smart city projects around the world. In those cas­es I do think peo­ple have aspi­ra­tions to think about if the Internet were the fun­da­men­tal mor­phol­o­gy, pol­i­tics, ide­ol­o­gy, econ­o­my, if we could use that as kind of like the ur-network form for all ways of think­ing about social­i­ty and urban­iza­tion, how could we make it man­i­fest in built space, for instance. 

But even with our exist­ing cities I think that dig­i­tal tech­nolo­gies are shap­ing the way peo­ple are think­ing about how to main­tain them, or how to adapt cer­tain areas. So, some peo­ple are propos­ing using dig­i­tal tech­nolo­gies to do more performance-based zon­ing, for instance. So you can do kind of live read­ings rather than hav­ing restric­tive kind of sta­t­ic sens­es of what can hap­pen in cer­tain parcels of the city. Instead you let peo­ple do what they want as long as they don’t go above a cer­tain deci­bel lev­el. Or as long as like they’re not emit­ting kind of offen­sive smells or chang­ing air qual­i­ty mea­sur­ably. So, as long as you can mea­sure those things, they’ll sup­pos­ed­ly allow sort of greater flex­i­bil­i­ty. The chal­lenge is like, the zon­ing serves more pur­pos­es than mea­sur­able sen­sors actu­al­ly allow you to capture. 

Fuller: Yeah. This is a ques­tion that I ask every­body. And I’m espe­cial­ly curi­ous as some­one who’s…you know, very out­side of graph­ic design. What are the…from your view, what are the…what do you see as the issues or top­ics that graph­ic design­ers should be think­ing about right now, or if there’s some sort of crit­i­cal gaze on the pro­fes­sion and the work. What are the things that are kind of press­ing graph­ic design right now?

Mattern: Well that is a huge ques­tion and you’re ask­ing a non-graphic design­er. I think that some of the ques­tions you asked in terms of how graph­ic design can par­tic­i­pate in a lot of these kind of cr— In acad­e­mia there’s a cri­sis for every­thing, so we overuse the term cri­sis.” We use it far too often. But like the cri­sis of cred­i­bil­i­ty, cri­sis of epis­te­mol­o­gy. So the fact that again, you are not just shap­ing con­tent. You are shap­ing the way peo­ple know things. And the way kind of social net­works form, as I’m sure as some­one who for Facebook you are very much aware of. 

So rec­og­niz­ing these kind of real, fun­da­men­tal, kind of much low­er on Maslow’s hier­ar­chy of needs type of func­tions you’re actu­al­ly serv­ing, you’re kind of not at the aes­thet­ic tip. You are actu­al­ly serv­ing again down that stack of infrastructures. 

Fuller: Yeah. I mean the rea­son I ask that question…and that was a great answer because I was— My follow-up ques­tion is what are the issues or top­ics that are fac­ing media right now, or as some­one who works in media stud­ies who is not a media the­o­rist, but what are the… What would a media crit­ic, what should they be look­ing at right now? And I was curi­ous if there were par­al­lels between… What are the par­al­lels between the kind of issues that peo­ple study­ing media should look at and peo­ple study­ing graph­ic design should look at.

Mattern: I think so. Again, and I don’t want to reify this whole stack metaphor, too, because that has got­ten… It has been coopt­ed by cer­tain kind of the­o­ret­i­cal schools in recent years even though it’s like a very old mod­el that kind of like net­work engi­neers and peo­ple have been using for a long time. 

But any­way, this idea that there are kind of dif­fer­ent lay­ers of infra­struc­ture that you have to work with. I think that’s some­thing that media stud­ies peo­ple and crit­i­cal data stud­ies peo­ple, crit­i­cal algo­rithm stud­ies peo­ple are becom­ing more aware of. And rather than media lit­er­a­cy used to be the thing that was some­times taught in school. If you came from a good school you prob­a­bly had a media lit­er­a­cy thing. And that’s been around for sev­er­al decades. And there you would kind of look at an adver­tise­ment and see how women were rep­re­sent­ed. Or watch a film and see how African Americans— So it was very tex­tu­al analysis-oriented. And I think that again, look­ing at that stack, I think media stud­ies rec­og­nizes that that’s not enough. 

You also have to have peo­ple ask ques­tions about what are the dif­fer­ences between the dif­fer­ent screens you’re encoun­ter­ing dur­ing the day. Or, how does net neu­tral­i­ty fac­tor into what you can even see on your screens. And the peo­ple who you share your soci­ety with. So look­ing at all these dif­fer­ent lay­ers of kind of hard­ware, and net­work and sup­ply chains, all this kind of stuff. 

Fuller: Right. And those are all design— I mean those are all design ques­tions, then, also. 

Mattern: Yes. 

Fuller: It’s all the same, kind of the same kind of thing. That’s real­ly interesting.

I have kind of two ques­tions that— The last ques­tion that I ask every­body is, who are the kind of the writ­ers, or the crit­ics, or the­o­rists who have real­ly influ­enced you? So I’m going to ask you that ques­tion, but then I’m gonna ask you a follow-up ques­tion which is, if you were putting togeth­er a read­ing list—and I’m sure you prob­a­bly have a read­ing list—for some­one who is new to this field, or a graph­ic design­er who is inter­est­ed in these par­al­lels, who are those writ­ers or those books that they should read as kind of a good entry into think­ing about these things?

Mattern: Could you say the sec­ond one again? I’m less clear how that’s dif­fer­ent than the first.

Fuller: Oh yeah. So the first one is just who has influ­enced you, and then the sec­ond one is some­one who’s new to all of these, who are the good kind of…intro, kind of primer peo­ple to…get­ting to study­ing these things. 

Mattern: Okay—

Fuller: And they might not be dif­fer­ent. I did­n’t mean to com­plete­ly sep­a­rate them. 

Fuller: Okay. Well, these are the types of ques­tions that I wish I had kind of looked through my book­shelf before I came here because I know I’m gonna for­get some peo­ple who have been super for­ma­tive. But the peo­ple who’ve been very influ­en­tial to me were—I would say some of the schol­ars I read ear­ly in grad school who total­ly— I’ve men­tioned McLuhan. That was one, and I encoun­tered him as an under­grad­u­ate. Harold Innis. He’s an edi­tor who’s an econ­o­mist, who also thought about kind of infra­struc­tures as media also. 

And then a cou­ple peo­ple I encoun­tered real­ly ear­ly in grad­u­ate school real­ly shaped my research agen­da from there on, and those would be Beatriz Colomina and Lynn Spigel, who is a media and design his­to­ri­an who’s writ­ten a lot about how the rise of the tele­vi­sion and the rise of the mid-century home kind of shaped gen­der and class rela­tions with­in fam­i­lies, for instance. Diane Harris also writes about some of this stuff. 

So a lot of these peo­ple made fem­i­nist schol­ar­ship some­thing that was real­ly con­crete and acces­si­ble for me, because I did read kind of fem­i­nist schol­ars who did like, fem­i­nist the­o­ry. But when I saw it actu­al­ly play out in like, Lynn Spigel or Diane Harris’ work, that real­ly kind of made it seem acces­si­ble and con­crete to me. 

Fuller: And that comes back to what you were talk­ing about ear­li­er, pair­ing these things with actu­al arti­facts. And so that was there from…that was very ear­ly on for you, you were see­ing that happen.

Mattern: Absolutely, yes. Yeah. 

Fuller: Yeah that’s interesting.

Mattern: Who else do I have a lot of books from? Well, you know, every­body goes through their Walter Benjamin phase as well, too. So that was for­ma­tive for me for a while. And Lewis Mumford I still think is pret­ty amaz­ing. Again I’ve spo­ken to some archi­tec­tur­al his­to­ri­an friends, which I am not, who have said that again, like with McLuhan there’s some shame in acknowl­edg­ing that you’re influ­enced by Mumford—

Fuller: Oh real— Oh I did­n’t know that.

Mattern: —but he said maybe there’s a resur­gence of Mumford. I don’t know that, either, so I’m kind of shamelessly… 

Fuller: I love that.

Mattern: I’ve always been…kind of a mar­gin­al fan of Mumford, just— First of all his ambi­tion. The fact that who else writes an entire his­to­ry of the city, this is essen­tial­ly some of the books he’s writ­ten, and the breadth of top­ics he’s cov­ered, too.

Who else? I was informed at times by—not nec­es­sar­i­ly by the writ­ing style but the ideas of peo­ple like Donna Haraway, if [indis­tinct phrase]. So a lot of post­fem­i­nist the­o­ry and posthu­man­ist the­o­ry I got real­ly into for a while in grad­u­ate school. Some of this stuff I kind of either grew out of, or moved beyond, but it still is very much…it’s in the back of my head inform­ing the types of things that I think about and enjoy.

Johanna Drucker is anoth­er per­son. I know that Anne Burdick men­tioned her— Anne Burdick’s work, also as well. Catherine Hales is some­body else that she men­tioned. Matt Kirschenbaum is a [indis­tinct] schol­ar. So his work. I think Anne might’ve men­tioned all these folks also. 

Fuller: Yeah. She had the best— Sorry to inter­rupt you. Everybody always says exact­ly what you say when I ask this ques­tion, every­one’s like, Oh, I wish I looked at my book­shelf. You shoul­da warned me. This is the hard­est ques­tion.” She’s still the only one who just…[crosstalk]…was ready to go, just had every­body. It was great. 

Mattern: Just jumped into it. That’s great. I’d also say like Lisa Parks— 

Fuller: That name sounds familiar.

Mattern: …who is an infra­struc­ture schol­ar. And one for stu­dents, who’s actu­al­ly in terms of age and senior­i­ty junior to me but has been a great kind of me, Nicole Starosielski is her name. She’s at NYU. She again, like Neil Postman, who I admired just as much for his schol­ar­ship as for like the way he was a schol­ar in the world, Nicole is just an incred­i­bly gen­er­ous per­son, who when she works with you on a project, all the base moti­va­tions that humans bring like jealousy…kind of one­ups­man­ship, she just does not have that. She gen­uine­ly wants to make your work bet­ter and engages in a real dia­logue with you. So, her work is great, and just the way she actu­al­ly is a schol­ar in the world is I think some­thing that’s real­ly admirable. 

Another per­son who’s like that also is Tara McPherson. She’s a USC media schol­ar who looks at lot at like the his­to­ry of race in cod­ing, and fem­i­nism in pro­gram­ming. Miriam Posner is anoth­er per­son who’s also— Lauren Klein. 

Fuller: See…you’re doing fine. You’ve been—

Mattern: Okay, but I’m sure there are peo­ple that I’m not remem­ber­ing at all. 

Fuller: No, this is great. Is there…is that…do you have anoth­er list for the per­son new to this or would you recom—or are all those people…would you rec­om­mend them just across the board? I don’t mean to add more pres­sure to you.

Mattern: I think a lot of those peo­ple are acces­si­ble, or they have— I would also add Jussi Parikka, of the media archae­ol­o­gy peo­ple. But I think some of these peo­ple have pub­lished in more publicly-accessible venues. So they do have their kind of slight­ly more inac­ces­si­ble, abstruse aca­d­e­m­ic work. But they do have some stuff out there that is also publicly-accessible as well. 

Who else? I think also a lot of the more pub­lic schol­ar­ship venues that we were talk­ing about are a great place to encounter these folks, like— Or when I write for Places Journal

Fuller: Yeah. That’s where I first read you, was a piece you’d writ­ten about libraries for them a cou­ple of years ago. 

Mattern: Oh yeah. And then like, and I’m not sure how to pro­nounce it. Aeon? They pub­lish a lot at Cabinet Magazine in Brooklyn. Yeah, so these types of venues I think are really…accessible and engag­ing ways to encounter kind of the­o­ret­i­cal or more aca­d­e­m­ic type of work in a less stereo­typ­i­cal­ly aca­d­e­m­ic setting. 

Fuller: Yeah. I love that. This was so great. I had a lot of fun. I feel like…my head is just spin­ning with ideas and oth­er ques­tions. I could eas­i­ly talk to you for anoth­er hour or two about these things. So thank you so much for your time. This was so fun.

Mattern: Thanks for join­ing me in my unair­con­di­tioned office. 

Fuller: Nah. I love it. It’s great.

Mattern: Alright.

Fuller: This episode was record­ed on Feburary 21st, 2018 in New York City. Our theme music is by Andy Borghesani. We’re on Twitter and Instagram at sur­face­pod­cast. You can find us on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, and SoundCloud, and at scratch​ingth​esur​face​.fm. Thanks for listening.

Further Reference

Episode page

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.