|
±Ý¼Ó.°ø¿¹.¼À |
| 2003/04/10(11:44) from 210.104.102.180 | |
| ÀÛ¼ºÀÚ : 이안 (canadian-silversmith@runbox.com) | Á¶È¸¼ö : 1045 , ÁÙ¼ö : 38 |
| Organic Essentialism (English Version) |
|---|
|
“IF YOU LOOK AT THE PRESENT DEEPLY ENOUGH, THE FUTURE WILL BECOME DISCERNIBLE.” I believe that ‘style’ as a term is applied to objects by those who need the security of quantifiable definitions used for intelligently justifying their public views on taste and quality. Defining an object, or work, in ‘this-or-that style’ comfortably allows works to be compared, contrasted, and catalogued with others, allowing an intellectual rationale to support an individual’s contemporary sense of taste. There is no opportunity for an object to evolve along with changing living conditions once it has been associated with the specific cultural and social values of a ‘lifestyle’. The object then becomes an icon or artefact fixed in a particular period of time and space defined by the aesthetics of a ‘style’. It is a label applied after the object has been created; an epilogue written after the climax. An after thought that should not consciously prejudice the designer’s creative processes before the work is realised. So then how can I use the term ‘Organic Essentialism’ for describing my aesthetics even though that definition is not actively governing the methodologies of my creative processes? This paradoxical situation occurs because academia requires students to link-up with a historical chain of influences which apparently establishes a context for critically understanding their works. Therefore I selected this term because it best describes my philosophical approach towards design rather than the style of my works and its contemporary concept discards many historical relationships by focusing upon ever-changing human conditions. The term Organic Essentialism (OE) was first printed as the introduction’s title for ‘The International Design Yearbook 2002’ (Laurence King Pub. 2002). It was used to describe the design approach of Ross Lovegrove’s work as well as providing a context towards understanding the works he selected for that year’s edition. However an examination of ‘Designing the 21st Century’ (Taschen 2001) clearly expresses from many designers the ideological values incorporated into defining OE. “I NEVER USE THE WORD ‘MODERN’. THE CONCEPT OF MODERNITY IMPLIES AN UNDERSTANDING OF ANCIENT THINGS. I KNOW THIS SOUNDS LIKE A PARADOX, BUT IT IS SO.” It is merely simplistic to say that OE is a reactionary response to the “style led / insipid anorexic quality” of the last couple of decades minimalist designs. The continuing minimalist approach to design pronounces that the “[form] is what is there – not what seems to be there; therefore we must speak in terms of the work that brings it into being” . From that you would be mistaken to think that by adding “utilitarian, organic, reduced, soft, puristic, poetic, modular and nomadic” elements to minimalist aesthetics evolves the form towards a new genre. If you did you would only be ‘styling’ because altering the structure of the form does not substantially modify its aesthetic value or character. Currently there many designers engaged in a transition phase from ‘pure-minimalist’ aesthetics towards a ‘modified-minimalist’ design approach. Karmin Rashid states,”I feel that a new culture demands new forms, material and style. I define my work as sensual minimalism, or ‘sensualism’, where objects communicate, engage and inspire yet remain fairly minimal. They can speak simply and directly without superfluousness. My work is a marriage of organic and pure geometry.” But I feel this approach, and others similar, are being cautiously applied as derivatives of minimalism due to the ‘seduction-factor’ of market economics and consumers reluctance to engage in radical shifts in design. “At the moment mass production is completely in control of the market, while we (the consumers) are looking for one-of-a-kind products. A beautiful product alone is not enough, we like to hear the story and see the marks of craftsmanship and not the influence of a ‘styling’ designer.” This dissatisfaction with fashionable / decorative / stylised products being slight variations of previous designs comes from a sentimental detachment born from the annual (quarterly) cycle of machine-made products recreating ‘new’ status–symbol opportunities. Designers must re-evaluate the necessity of mass-produced products perpetuating the temporary and disposable scenes of a ‘theatrical’ lifestyle. Therefore we have to consider beyond the formal qualities of the object towards the needs that our human desires require by being transformed from social and environmental changes. “Liberated from the concept of the object, design will be generated by a more complex system which will involve an understanding of situations and a permanent freedom of movement.” This means that the object must be conceived more from a broader social / cultural perspective rather than specific aesthetic / functional considerations. The basic concept of the object has to grow from being a product or an accessory reflecting certain periods of our lives into becoming a holistic component of how we live our life. This opens up the probabilities for OE becoming an ideological approach evolving design within the borderless (global) influences from Information Technology (IT) and the Internet, rather than being motivated as a reactionary movement away from Minimalism. The affects of IT’s influence on the human condition will be comparable to the social changes following the developments of agriculture, urbanity, celestial navigation, gun-powder, the mechanical clock and the internal combustion engine. It will be the catalyst for fundamental shifts in the perception of our existence in mega-urban centres and our symbiotic relationships within nature. Less prophetically (and more poetically) Ross Lovegrove states,” [the] process by which we are discovering new possibilities is being rapidly accelerated by computing technology – a technology that we always knew would open our minds. Indeed, it is this concept of inevitability that intrigues me especially when applied to the world we see and touch…our physical world. As boundaries blur, this world will become stranger and less predicable – a fabulous prospect for those of us who believe that strangeness is a consequence of innovative thinking. The irony of all this is that ultimately, creativity generated by such soup-like freedom will lead mankind full circle back to nature, its organic composition, its purpose and with it forms that will no longer be limited by man’s imagination.” I think his rational comes from a humanist awareness that we are all living in one planet (‘The Big Blue Marble’) regardless of geographical, political, social, cultural and religious differences and that the Internet is the means for millions to communicate simultaneously. We are one species in one large eco-system with the technological ability to instantly communicate with all others and that (virtual) reality will concentrate the sublime scale of nature’s immensity. Once we may have felt helplessly subjected by nature’s unexplained power but now we can fully understand that our civilisation is adversely affecting nature. This global awareness is the re-connection to nature that I feel his opinion offers beyond the obvious design capabilities that computing technology continues to develop. Advances in engineering and materials research have created possibilities to design spaces and products in harmony with nature rather than decorating the interior and exterior of ‘cubed’ spaces we currently inhabit. The best architectural scale example of OE was recently completed in Singapore in 2002. The Esplanade, Theatres on the Bay, designed by D.P. Architects establishes a precedent for future public (and private) spaces by embodying “a new naturalism of form that is based fundamentally on the concept of getting the most from the least” while assertively radiating “the sculptural line of things that exist in the natural world.” On the smaller scale of objects / products, OE “designs reflect something of the abstract essence of nature and possess an engaging tactility that invites physical interaction.” It is that invitation that transcends the object beyond its functionalism towards a spiritual interaction with its user. That is when the product transforms from being an objectified ‘it’ into being a personalised ‘yours/ours/mine/my’ and the difference between being just another trendy stylised object and an integral life-living participant. In either scale the character of the form projects from within the value of its ‘soul’ to those innate emotions of ‘being and becoming’ within us. A summary of Organic Essentialism as a meta-design concept subliminally underlying a designer’s (my) creative process needs to directly state the objectives of its various components. Firstly it “marries sculptural forms inspired by ergonomics and elements from the natural world to a concern for the logical arrangement of only those elements that are absolutely necessary for the accomplishment of a particular purpose.” The essence of the form is suggestive of natural elements while not being decorative or functionally minimalist. “Functionality is no longer merely the simplification of use, but also implies all the plans we make in life, first and foremost on the spiritual level. This is why we can now speak freely about the functionality of the spirit. The beauty of the object provokes a feeling that constructs our life.” This second component of OE understands that beauty is a projection of the ‘soul’ of an object inviting a visceral engagement with our life. The third component suggests that “[the] designer of the future should use references from his cultural background –traditions, colours, history- so that his sproducts have an authenticity and originality that is not governed by fashion or global trends. These ‘soul’ references will help products communicate more directly.” When these references are combined with previously mentioned humanist values they will generate a familiar distinctiveness that characterises the ‘soul’ of an object. The last component includes a ‘human-touch’ through the quality of craftsmanship and references to the hand-made. This is easily achieved in my work but still remains important for animating the character of an object regardless of its manufacture. These components of OE are not a checklist to be adhered to during the creative process but are an outline of a growing Western contemporary design philosophy that is underlying the aesthetic values of many designers besides myself. They represent a holistic approach to objects participating in an epicurean life rather than ‘things’ perpetuating a transient existence based upon consumerism and disposability. The key to OE’s longevity in influencing design aesthetics will be directly proportional to the skills of those designers assimilating its components into their visions and inspirations and unconsciously combining them into the parameters of any given project. One such designer already on the forefront is Ross Lovegrove and his humble admission describing the sources of his inspiration will end this section on Organic Essentialism. “THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE BEAUTY IN ORGANIC FORMS THAT STIMULATE DEEPLY WITHIN THE SUBCONSCIOUS. I AM MOVED BY THE HONESTY AND RICHNESS OF SUCH FORMS WHICH CELEBRATE THE THREE DIMENSIONAL EFFECT OF OUR LIVING IN HARMONY WITH SPACE.” Ron Arad. Designing the 21st Century. Edit. Charlotte & Peter Friell (Taschen GmbH 2001) Pp. 41. Antonio Citterio. Designing the 21st Century. Edit. Charlotte & Peter Friell (Taschen GmbH 2001) Pp. 116. Peter & Charlotte Friell. The International Design Yearbook 2002 (Laurence King 2002) Pp. 6. Enzo Mari. Designing the 21st Century. Edit. Charlotte & Peter Friell (Taschen GmbH 2001) Pp. 310. Werner Aisslinger. Designing the 21st Century. Edit. Charlotte & Peter Friell (Taschen GmbH 2001) Pp. 31. Karmin Rashid. Designing the 21st Century. Edit. Charlotte & Peter Friell (Taschen GmbH 2001) Pp. 407. Arnout Visser. Designing the 21st Century. Edit. Charlotte & Peter Friell (Taschen GmbH 2001) Pp. 529. R. & E. Bouroullec. Designing the 21st Century. Edit. Charlotte & Peter Friell (Taschen GmbH 2001) Pp. 88. Ross Lovegrove. Designing the 21st Century. Edit. Charlotte & Peter Friell (Taschen GmbH 2001) Pp. 297. Peter & Charlotte Friell. The International Design Yearbook 2002 (Laurence King 2002) Pp. 6. Peter & Charlotte Friell. The International Design Yearbook 2002 (Laurence King 2002) Pp. 7. Peter & Charlotte Friell. The International Design Yearbook 2002 (Laurence King 2002) Pp. 7. Peter & Charlotte Friell. The International Design Yearbook 2002 (Laurence King 2002) Pp. 6. Riccardo Blumer. Designing the 21st Century. Edit. Charlotte & Peter Friell (Taschen GmbH 2001) Pp. 82. F. & H. Campana. Designing the 21st Century. Edit. Charlotte & Peter Friell (Taschen GmbH 2001) Pp. 111. Ross Lovegrove. The International Design Yearbook 2002 (Laurence King 2002) Pp. 7. |
|
|