Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
future_fabulators:scenario_design_201310 [2013-10-14 12:15] – Links to future_fabulators:20131013_ff_debrief changed to future_fabulators:scenario_design_debrief_20131013 nik | future_fabulators:scenario_design_201310 [2013-10-23 10:52] – [Scenario Design 201310] maja | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Eight scenarios which emerged from design sessions during the first meeting of Future Fabulators, 9-13 October in Linz, Austria. The sessions were co-designed by FoAM and Time's Up, hosted by Maja Kuzmanovic. | Eight scenarios which emerged from design sessions during the first meeting of Future Fabulators, 9-13 October in Linz, Austria. The sessions were co-designed by FoAM and Time's Up, hosted by Maja Kuzmanovic. | ||
- | Participants: | + | Participants: |
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
This 3 hour long session was designed as a warm-up of the kick-off meeting, before delving into administrative and logistical details. The aim was to allow the group to explore the goals and activities of the project outside of the narrow funding guidelines. We started from aspects that are fixed (such as the locations, financing people, experiments, | This 3 hour long session was designed as a warm-up of the kick-off meeting, before delving into administrative and logistical details. The aim was to allow the group to explore the goals and activities of the project outside of the narrow funding guidelines. We started from aspects that are fixed (such as the locations, financing people, experiments, | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{> | ||
+ | // // | ||
Two scenario axes that were chosen during the exercise: stable climate <-> climate chaos; dynamic stability <-> perpetual crisis. The following four scenarios were created: | Two scenario axes that were chosen during the exercise: stable climate <-> climate chaos; dynamic stability <-> perpetual crisis. The following four scenarios were created: | ||
Line 21: | Line 24: | ||
The aim of this session was to experiment with scenario building as a basis for creating back-stories or story-worlds for physical narratives and pre-enactments. The hypothesis was that this process allows a diverse group of people to create and agree on back-stories that are rooted in the present situation in a relatively short amount of time. The original plan was to do this over 2 days (day1: create skeleton scenarios), day 2: construct storyworlds), | The aim of this session was to experiment with scenario building as a basis for creating back-stories or story-worlds for physical narratives and pre-enactments. The hypothesis was that this process allows a diverse group of people to create and agree on back-stories that are rooted in the present situation in a relatively short amount of time. The original plan was to do this over 2 days (day1: create skeleton scenarios), day 2: construct storyworlds), | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{> | ||
+ | // // | ||
Two scenario axes that were chosen during the exercise: isolation & compartmentalisation <-> universal translation & true interdisciplinarity; | Two scenario axes that were chosen during the exercise: isolation & compartmentalisation <-> universal translation & true interdisciplinarity; | ||
Line 32: | Line 38: | ||
==== Debrief ==== | ==== Debrief ==== | ||
- | Both scenario building sessions were experiments, | + | Both scenario building sessions were experiments, |
- | + | ||
- | [[ scenario_design_debrief_20131013|Process debrief notes]] | + | |