Dialogue on (digital) materiality
Christine Rafflenbeul, Yannic Heintzen, Canan Bunk
Bremen, 6 November 2026
Introduction (to research topics and questions each of us brings to the text)
Canan: My research explores programming as a design practice. I
understand design as a reflexive practice: as a designer, I
engage with the conditions of my practice (its traditions, my
positionality, ressources I draw on) rather than taking them as given.
wip
Christine: My research explores making as thinking. I understand design
as a reflexive practice in the sense of ‘a mode of thinking’. I
experiment with bobbin lacemaking which I consider as a figure of
thought. I work on questions of how aesthetic thinking reifies in
textile practices such as bobbin lacemaking and fashion design in
general and in a broader understanding of it. [i have to leave to work
in a bit already but i’ll write down the structure we developed last
time already. feel free to edit, delete whatever, if you feel okidoke,
have a good shift! thanks. i hope this is helpful. see you later ]
Yannic: My research explores Basteln (making or tinkering) as
understanding.
Digital Materiality: matter - material - materiality
- claims that digital things are not immaterial
- they have properties, limits and histories that shape what can be done with them
- digital materials act with real consequences, constraints and affordances in the physical world
- counters the myth of the weightless, frictionless digital
matter = universal physical substance (protons, atoms, mass) material = a usable substance (concrete, cotton, copper wire) materiality = the quality, impact, or significance of material
discuss own idea of it (Begriffsauseinandersetzung)
individual interest in topic
christine: from reification to fashioning
canan: is code material?
Coding and Knitting
To develop a mindful approach, I started to explore programming (as a design practice) through the lens of knitting. tbc
Designer, Material Tool
Drawing on Richard Sennett’s understanding of craftsmanship, I approach programming as a feedback loop between designer, material and tool. Drawing on Sennett, material is not understood as passive but brings properties and resistances that shape the process of creation. I’m interested in whether code can be understood as material in Sennett’s sense and, if so, how it shapes the design process. Unlike natural materials, however, the properties have not grown but have been set by humans. What do its resistances reveal about the decisions and assumptions inscribed in it?
Form follows material
In the craft understanding of the creative process, it is therefore essential that form does not emerge in the mind beforehand but in the act of making. Is this what you mean by making is thinking, Christine? Could one say, then, that in craft form follows material? This stands in an interesting tension with the central principle of functionalism, form follows function, which holds that the shape of an object should derive from its practical purpose. This implies that form can be determined in advance, before any engagement with the material. At design school, I learned that the concept precedes its execution, and that designing itself is therefore a process of implementation rather than exploration. I wonder whether this is also because we misunderstand our design tools as neutral, so they seem to contribute nothing to the form. In craft, by contrast, it is quite obvious that the choice of saw blade, for instance, affects the appearance of the cut. interdisciplinary teams, designer and developer, materiality of code as part of the design process tbc
If I understand code as material and making as thinking (Christine), can digital materiality itself then become a critical lens?