essay

While ‘the earliest sacred texts were authorless’ (Michael Rock, 2004, p.201), it was only in the 18th century that writers claimed authorship over their work. In fact, authorship is no longer necessarily associated to writing these days, it describes any state or act of creating or causing. According to Michael Rock, the author is ‘the person who originates or gives existence to anything’ (2004, p.200). With digital technologies enabling manipulations and edits to be made, authorship issues appeared due to the malleability and non-linearity of new media. Malleability refers to the property of digitals being shapeable or manipulable, whereas non-linearity characterizes a system with independent interrelated sequences and unpredictable outcomes. Not only Roland Barthes or Michel Foucault, two key figures of post-structuralism, devoted themselves to the problems associated with traditional ideas of authorship, also Jessica Helfand, a lecturer on graphic design, did. More precisely, she assesses that ‘as interactive technologies grow more complex, … linear parameters of classic narrative structure may no longer apply’ (2001, p.122). Thus, the question arises, which issues of authorship today’s designers and users have to deal with, as information is planted in a digital environment. Firstly, this essay will explore the shift of design to a team-based process, why authors lose recognition and finally, what role interactivity plays in this whole discussion of authorship issues.

With most of today’s information being placed in an electronic space, the designer’s work is no longer considered an individual, but rather a collaborative process, which leads to authorship issues. As a result of technology, it has never been easier for individuals to generate content as it is today, as stressed by Helen Armstrong (2009, Introduction p.10). In other words, not only designers initiate content these days, but also the rest of the general population participates in design processes, which results in collective authorship. In fact, Jessica Helfand confirms this statement by highlighting that ‘we are witnessing the emergence of a kind of shared authorship (2001, p.122). This shift of design to a team-based process has changed the producer-consumer relationship fundamentally in recent years as digital technology ‘puts creation, production and distribution into the hands’ of all of its users (Armstrong, 2009, Introduction p.9). Also, Ezio Manzini, a leading expert on sustainable design, agrees that new media ‘has made it easier to produce content’ (2015, p.125). Furthermore, he points out that in a connected world like ours, where everybody collaborates with everyone, a ‘separation of the design team from the rest of the world’ can no longer be made’ (2015, p.48). Due to the open distribution of ideas, tools and intellectual property, ‘a new kind of collective voice, more anonymous than individual’ emerges, according to Helen Armstrong (2009, Introduction p.10). Therefore, it is difficult to track down the origin of any particular idea in a design process as most of the work is done in a synergetic environment. An ideal example to demonstrate that ‘design processes tend to be increasingly distributed among numerous actors who differ … in professional development’ (Manzani, 2015, p.47) is ‘The 360 Project’ by Ryan Enn Hughes, which was created in 2011. In fact, ballet and also krump dancers were photographed by 48 cameras aligned in a circle in order to capture the dancers in a 360-degree view. In opposite to an individual work, there was not one artist alone realizing this design project, but there were several professionals cooperating together. In this case, editors, photographers, sound designers, lighting designers, cinematographers, a director and dancers collaborated, all striving towards one and the same goal. As electronic space is composed of so many different subcategories, there are often a lot of professionals needed, who are experts in a particular field, to obtain the best result possible. In his essay Michael Rock asserts that ‘the ever-present pressure of technology and electronic communication only further muddies the water’ (2005, p.203). To sum up, new rising technologies do not only engender collaborative design, but also collaborative authorship. This means, that artists need to share recognition with each other, which leads us to the next point.

Moreover, nowadays designers or authors get less recognition for their work as a result of new technologies such as, for example, the Internet. With the growing DIY (Do-it-yourself) community and spirit, some professional designers feel threatened ‘because it puts power and responsibility into amateur hands’ (Irani, 2008). These days, instead of buying clothes, people design them themselves; they no longer buy furniture, they build some on their own. ‘People are doing it themselves to no end’ (Siegel, 2006, p.115). In his essay, Siegel mentions the term ‘prosumerism’, a combination of the words production and consumption, and portrays it as a phenomenon, which ‘was once a niche market that exploded in the last decade’ (2006, p.116). In addition, Siegel is convinced that ‘prosumerism is changing the role of graphic design’ (2006, p.117) as DIY thinking reorganizes the relationship between the roles of the designer-producer and the former passive consumer, which ‘tend to overlap’ (Manzini, 2015, p.13). According to Siegel, ‘this shift in mind has the potential to marginalize designers’ (2006, p.116). As a consequence, a lot of designers are concerned about losing authority, credibility and clients’ respect ‘if people start thinking that graphic design is as easy as one, two, three’ (Heller, 2006). Nevertheless, not only the expanding DIY community diminishes today’s acknowledgement of designer’s authorship, but also the fact that in this world of ‘rapid and profound transformation, we are all designers’ (Manzini, 2015, Introduction). As a matter of fact, Siegel agrees with this statement by underlining that these days, ‘design is something anyone can participate in’ (2006, p.115). In modern times, designers are surrounded by people who seek ‘for customization and the opportunity to add their input’ (Siegel, 2006, p.116). This is a ‘reality we must face up to whether we wish to or not’ (Manzani, 2015, p.48). With the rise of technology allowing its users more and more, comes decentralized power, ‘exceedingly relaxed standards for what even constitutes design’ and the loss of hierarchies (Helfand, 2001, p.89, 91). In fact, Jessica Helfand affirms that ‘in time-based media, we no longer have control over hierarchical relationships’ (2001, p.122). For instance, open source software like Gimp and Inkscape, enables, not only privileged people or professional designers, but every individual to create a design artifact and put it out into the world. As the open source software is free and legal, it forms a perfect alternative to proprietary software, like Adobe programs, for people wanting to participate in the ‘prosumer culture’ (Armstrong, 2009, Introduction p.11). If they need help with the use of these numerous tools and programs, the Internet provides them with enough tutorials and instructions. To summarize, the growing number of people participating in today’s design process, whether beginners, hobby designers or the rest of the global population, makes it difficult for the professional designer to position himself in this ‘world where everybody designs’ (Manzini, 2015, p.2) and to claim recognition for his authorship that he deserves.

Furthermore, in a digital environment of unlimited options, interactivity plays a considerable role in this debate about authorship. To begin with, interactivity refers to ‘the ability to intervene in a meaningful way with the representation itself’ (Cameron, 1996). More precisely, when it comes to creating a product, today’s designers try to give their audience a choice and the chance to bring themselves in. In other words, they give their users some structure by predetermining a framework to narrow down the scope of the story, but ‘the audience, central to this interaction, is the protagonist’ (Helfand, 2001, p.123). The receiver is the one who decides between the forking paths in this interactive complexity given by the author. As a result, the user experiences a large degree of control, which makes him take over the authorship from the creator (Borges, 1941). Jessica Helfand detects that this shift ‘challenges the traditional expectations of form and content, of author and audience’ (2001, p.123). In addition, she states that with ‘interactive products comes a new definition of audience: no longer passive, theirs is a new kind of authority, offering enhanced choice as well as enhanced participation ... which jeopardizes our classic notions of the linear presentations of narrative forms’ (Helfand, 2001, p.123). This can be observed in Stephen Fry’s so-called Myfry iPhone app, which is a digital edition of his latest autobiography The Fry Chronicles. The content of his book is visualized by a ‘circular wheel of spines’ (Posavec, 2011), where each spine represents a different passage of the story. By moving his finger over those different sections, the user can choose which part of the autobiography he wants to read first. Thanks to the interactive presentation, the reader doesn’t have to explore the book in chronological order, but can jump to whichever part he wants to have a look at first. In this case, interactivity can be understood as a liberation from passivity for the reader. Lev Manovich also announced that today’s spectator is no longer immobilized, but ‘has to work, to speak, in order to see’ (2001, p.109). In other terms, many people take active part in becoming content producers and more or less able storytellers as asserted by Ezio Manzani (2015, p. 125). Conforming to Jessica Helfand, ‘stories do not necessary have a beginning, middle, and an end [anymore]’, meaning they have the ability to become non-linear in an electronic space (2001, p.122). Additionally, she ponders on how to keep the integrity of authorship ‘if each viewer becomes de facto storyteller’ (2001, p.122). In fact, this new definition of the audience illustrates today’s ‘limits of the artist’s ability to control the fate’ of his work (Buskirk, 2003, p.50). Hence, Martha Buskirk is concerned by what means artists retain control ‘over the conditions of display of their works’ (2003, p.24). All in all, interactivity and its non-linear structures do not only lead to users actively participating in this digital complexity, but also withdraw the designer’s authorship, power and control over his work to some degree.

In conclusion, this essay has demonstrated how collaborative design processes, the growing number of people participating in today’s design and interactivity, all play a part in contributing to authorship issues for both the author and the user with today’s information being placed in an electronic space. On the one hand, the audience has to become aware of its new position, because enhanced participation also means enhanced responsibility. In other words, the users now have a voice and should use it deliberately. On the other hand, designers also need to ‘consciously reposition themselves within the prosumer culture, [otherwise they] run the risk of being creatively sidelined by it’ (Armstrong, 2009, Introduction p.11). Graphic designers need to adapt their methods, speak up and take initiatives in order to assert themselves among the rest of the population. In fact, Michael Rock confirms this statement by affirming that ‘in the end, authorship is only a device to compel designers to rethink process and expand their methods’ (2005, p.208). In her article Emigre, Anne Burdick stresses that ‘designers must consider themselves authors, not facilitators. This shift in perspective implies responsibility, voice, action.’ Authorship is a ‘provocative model for rethinking the role of the graphic designer’ (Lupton, 2009), which gives today’s designers the opportunity to reinvent themselves and broaden their horizons.
As the ‘issue of the author has been an area of scrutiny’ (Rock, 2005, p.200) for decades and this development of repositioning both users and designers in society is quite new, the future is yet unwritten. (1916 words)

1) Bailey, S. (2006). Thoughts on Authorship in Design. Available from: http://blog.linedandunlined.com/post/404190709/thoughts-on-authorship-in-design [Accessed on 17 November 2015]
2) Bavdekar, S. B. (2012). Authorship issues. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22345922 [Accessed on 17 November 2015]
3) Borges, J. L. (1941). The Garden of the Forking Paths. Available from: http://wsblog.iash.unibe.ch/wp-content/uploads/Borges_The-Garden-of-Forking-Paths.pdf [Accessed on 20 November 2015]
4) Cambridge University Press. (2015). Decentralize. Available from: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/decentralize [Accessed on 17 November 2015]
5) Cameron, A. (1996). Dissimulatiions: Illusions of Interactivity. Available from: http://mfj-online.org/journalPages/MFJ28/Dissimulations.html [Accessed on 20 November 2015]
6) Farlex, Inc. (2015). The Free Dictionary: Nonlinear system. Available from: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Nonlinearity [Accessed on 19 November 2015]
7) Fitzpatrick, K. (2011). The digital future of authorship: Rethinking originality. Available from: file:///Users/annipiticco/Downloads/433-889-1-PB%20(1).pdf [Accessed on 17 November 2015]
8) Greenhill, A. Fletcher, G. (2003). The Social Construction of Electronic Space. Available from: http://www.spaceless.com/papers/12.htm [Accessed on 20 November 2015]
9) Haseney, D. Velagic, Z. (2013). Understanding textual authorship in the digital environment: lessons from historical perspectives. Available from: http://www.informationr.net/ir/18-3/colis/paperC19.html#.VksF-9_hC1s [Accessed on 17 November 2015]
10) Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. (2014). The Free Dictionary: Tangibility. Available from: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tangibility [Accessed on 15 November 2015]
11) IGI Global. (2011). What is Prosumerism. Available from: http://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/prosumerism/23888 [Accessed on 16 November 2015]
12) International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2015). Defining the role of Authors and Contributors. Available from: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html [Accessed on 8 November 2015]
13) Investopedia, LLC. (2015). Nonlinearity. Available from: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nonlinearity.asp [Accessed on 20 November 2015]
14) Irani, L. (2008). The Politics and Practice of Designing it Yourself. Available from: http://www.differenceengines.com/uploads/irani-diy.pdf [Accessed on 16 November 2015]
15) MakerBot Industries, LLC. (2010). Prosumerism: Producer and Consumer Merge. Available from: http://www.makerbot.com/blog/2010/10/27/prosumerism-producer-and-consumer-merge [Accessed on 16 November 2015]
16) Marshall, T. Erlhoff, M. (2008). Auteur Design. Available from: http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-7643-8140-0_18 [Accessed on 16 November 2015]
17) Osborne, J. W. Holland, A. (2009). What is authorship, and what should it be? A survey of prominent guidelines for determining authorship in scientific publications. Available from: http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=14&n=15 [Accessed on 8 November 2015]
18) Pitts, K. Kumar, R. (2009). Issues in Digital Technology in Education/Web 2.0 Learning Environments. Available from: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Issues_in_Digital_Technology_in_Education/Web_2.0_Learning_Environments [Accessed on 17 November 2015]
19) Posavec, S. (2011). MyFry. Available from: http://www.stefanieposavec.co.uk/myfry/ [Accessed on 20 November 2015]
20) Rock, M. (1996). Designer as author. Available from: http://2x4.org/ideas/22/designer-as-author/ [Accessed on 8 November 2015]
21) Rock, M. (2004). Graphic Authorship. Available from: https://www.typotheque.com/articles/graphic_authorship [Accessed on 8 November 2015]
22) Vimeo, LLC. (2011). Behind the Scenes – The 360 Project. Available from: https://vimeo.com/29461342 [Accessed on 20 November 2015]
23) Wehner, J. (2006). Thoughts on ‘Designing our own graves’. Available from: http://blogs.thewehners.net/josh/posts/240-thoughts-on-designing-our-own-graves

1) Bird, M. (2012). 100 Ideas that changes art. London: Laurence King Publishing.
2) Buskirk, M. (2003). The Contingent Object of Contemporary Art. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
3) Chun, W. H. K. Keenan, T. (2006). New media old media: A History and Theory Reader. Abingdon: Routledge.
4) Compaine, B. M. (1984). Understanding new media: Trends and issues in electronic distribution of information. Harvard: Ballinger Publishing Company.
5) Fernie, E. (1995). Art history and its methods: A critical anthology. London: Phaidon.
6) Helfand, J. (2001). Screen: Essays on Graphic Design, New Media, and Visual Culture. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
7) Hennessy, B. (2008). Writing an essay: simple techniques to transform your coursework and examinations. 5th edition. Oxford: How to Books LTD.
8) Highmore, B. (2008) The Design Culture Reader. Abingdon: Routledge.
9) Lanham, R. A. (1993). The electronic Word. London: The University of Chicage Press, Ltd.
10) Levin, O. (2004). Write great essays. Glasgow: Bell & Bain.
11) Lupton, E. (2009). The designer as producer. In: Heller, S. (eds.) The Education of a Graphic Designer. New York: Allworth Press
12) Manovich, L. (2001). The language of New Media. Massachusetts: Graphic Composition, Inc.
13) Manovich, L. (2013). Software takes command. New York, London: Bloomsbury Academic.
14) Manzini, E. (2015). Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
15) McCarthy, S. (2013). The Designer As: Author, Producer, Activist, Entrepreneur, Curator & Collaborator: New Models for Communicating. Amsterdam: Bis Publishers.
16) Noble, I. Bestley, R. (2005). Visual Research: An Introduction to Research Methodologies in Graphic Design. Lausanne: AVA Publishing SA.
17) Press, M. Cooper, R. (2003). The Design Experience The Role of Design and Designers in the Twenty-First Century. Surrey: Ashgate.
18) Preston, P. (2001). Reshaping Communications. London: SAGE Publications LTD.
19) Rock, M. (2005). Graphic Authorship. In: Heller, S. (eds.) The Education of a Graphic Designer. New York: Allworth Press
20) Sarris, A. (1962). Notes on the Auteur Theory in 1962. In: Sarris, A. Film Culture No 27. New York: Mekas, J.
21) Siegel, D. (2006). Designing our own graves. In: Armstrong, H. (2009). Graphic Design Theory: Readings from the field. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
22) Soanes, C. Spooner, A. Hawker, S. (2001). Oxford Paperback Dictionary Thesaurus & Wordpower Guide. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
23) Soles, D. (2005). The Academic Essay. 2nd edition. Bishops Lydeard: Studymates Limited.
24) Walter, B. (2008). The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. London: Penguin Books Ltd.