This week’s topic of ‘explosives lists’ was one that was a lot easier to grasp. I think this was due to last week’s reading touching on the topic, where Bogost (2012, p. 51) said an explosive list diagram “is meant to clarify some complex physical system… [yet] offers just as much intrigue as it does use value.” He also describes “how much rather than how little exists simultaneously” (2012, p. 59), which is the concept of a Meanwhile lists.
In class we also learnt about the Wonder list. This list describes everything you may wonder about an object – both how a thing “comes to be, and how it comes to matter for other things” (Miles, et. al, 2018, p. 306). Essentially, it’s facets (parts or features) are able to be noticed by the various other facets, and they are always relational due to this constant exchange. Miles et. al. (2018)’s teaspoon example was a really interesting one, because it described the process of wondering about all the different parts of, and uses for a teaspoon. This concept showed how the list can explode inwards, when you think about it being made of various metals, the mining of those materials, its manufacturing, advertising, sales, transport and purchase until it ended up in the coffee shop. It can also explode outward, when you wonder about its many uses to different people and its future. Miles et. al. (2018) ntoices the spoon’s design. Other’s may only see it for its purpose, or admire it as a souvenir. Then there is the question of how else it could be used, and where it may end up. Used as a toy by a child? At another table? In landfill? These questions could go on, and spread further out – exploding.
For my list I chose to create a Wonder list, exploding inwards. I immediately thought of my computer as some people may just see a PC, or see outwards and its design. I chose to go inwards, and break it down into its components (as many as I could get out myself – this was my first try). It was intriguing to me personally as I didn’t build my PC, but want to understand how it works to upgrade it. And in theory, if I had the knowledge this list could have exploded even further. There were more parts to remove, and like the teaspoon example, there’s the question of how these parts ended up with me, and how they were made.
References:
Bogost, I., 2012. ‘Ontography’ in Alien Phenomenology. Or What It’s Like to be a Thing. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. pp. 35-59.
Miles, A., Weidle, F., Brasier, H., Lessard, B., 2018. From Critical Distance to Critical Intimacy: Interactive Documentary and Relational Media, in: Cammaer, G., Fitzpatrick, B., Lessard, B. (Eds.), Critical Distance in Documentary Media. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp. 301–319.
