28 juin 2007
My vision
To aim at the affectively sustainable is to look for the hidden obvious in an object.
Most designers share at least one vision: to contribute to real development rather than to design merely another. My vision as a researcher is to provide designers with new or newly combined knowledge, which have a chance to facilitate their mission. Knowledge, in my meaning of the term, is also consciousness: to put in doubt and rethink as also to look beyond the rational.
Irrational problems have been the subject of much analysis. In 1973 Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber wrote a landmark article were they discussed that there are a set of problems [of social policy] that cannot be resolved with traditional analytical approaches. They labelled such problems "Wicked Problems".1 Are irrational problems in general "wicked"? According to Rittel and Webber there are no solutions to these problems ‘in the sense of definitive and objective answers’ (p. 155). Are irrational problems unsolvable?
In my logic irrational problems are neither "wicked" nor unsolvable. However, to solve them a new way of thinking, a change of direction of thought, is necessary and also a prerequisite for development, which goes further than innovation. I refuse to call this type of thinking ‘a new rationality’. This expression, though often heard, risks in fact conserving rationality as the one way to think: to replace one kind of rationality with another. Given a ‘softened’ name, this reasoning can be referred to as something which makes a difference when in fact it does not.
Affective sustainability might immediately appear to have connotations of something irrational. Many measures in the direction of sustainable development are halted or rendered difficult due to what are considered to be irrational causes (wicked?). Knowing that many, if not the majority, of the choices we make through life are irrational, based on feelings, the struggle for that which is aimed at sustainability becomes evident as does the term itself.2 Sustaining for the sake of it has no sense.
I therefore want to continue my research on affective sustainability, but in an applied way. Existing objects can be redefined on the basis of time, tradition, aesthetic and perception. In this context, intuition must increasingly be valued as a competence, not merely a spiritual thought.3
Rationality is one important tool in designing but not the only tool. It has given us the simple object, but not simplification. Simplification is not solely a measure concerning physicality. It takes into consideration the affect an object evokes: this must be positive, easily de-coded and stored.
My vision is to help designers look for the obvious when designing. It might be immediately hidden, but when it is found, it shows the way to simplification.
1Rittel H. & Webber M. (1973) Dilemmas in General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences. No 4, pp 155-169.
2Damasio, A. (1994) Descartes’ Error. Revised ed. London: Vintage
3Bastick, T (2003) Intuition. Evaluating the Construct and its Impact on Creative Thinking. Kingston, Jamaica: Stoneman & Lang.
Prologue - Frome timelessness to Affective Sustainability
Very early on when my interest in design was not professional, I was fascinated by objects and buildings, which seemed to have some kind of eternal appeal.
Why then this fascination?
Unlike many young people I was never fixated with the new or the latest
version of everything but neither did I have an interest in old things as such. Everything that worked aesthetically and functionally appeared very appealing, regardless of age. I was in effect a very early devotee of eclecticism, which to me was exactly that: combining designs to create a functioning whole, with all aspects taken into consideration. Periods or eras were not relevant. Later I learnt about eclecticism as a contemporary trend, which risked being dismissed as merely a passing fashion. I probably interpreted eclecticism wrongly from the outset. Commonly defined as a juxtaposition of styles, for me it was about combining existing forms in a new, hopefully purposeful, way. According to John Dewey, who I will return to in detail in my work, this is what art and design is all about. It is not about creating new forms, even if this is what many designers often are occupied with – or believe they are occupied with.
When my interest in design eventually started to take a professional turn[1], this idea of objects, which could be related to any time, [even if apparently originating from a certain time] appeared very important, not least because of the enormous resources to be saved by making use of the experience involved. However, I could not find an answer to the question why some objects seemed ‘contemporary with every other age’[2], those we habitually and without deeper reflection call: Timeless. Is it about lucky circumstances, factors converging in the right object in the right time? Do certain historical periods influence us more than others and do objects dating from these periods therefore have a stronger and more sustainable presence? Maybe, it is mainly about smart design solutions: objects stripped down to bare essentials? Could timelessness in fact be a marketing gimmick or alternatively the making of designs historians?
It proved impossible to find any coherent pattern among these possible factors or explanations. The only way forward appeared to be some kind of dissection of the denomination timelessness. My interest had turned academic.
The notions of the timeless and timelessness were thus already very much in focus during the initial process leading to concretisation of the subject area for my thesis. First enthusiasm eventually met reality. The ambiguity of the timeless became evident, not least through a question I posed on the PhD-Design mailing list (Timeless? 2002). If at all concrete, the timeless was referred to as a phenomenon with philosophical implications. I realised that the research underpinning my thesis would at least initially be something of a quest, but would it be worthwhile? Accounting not only for my motives, but also making a careful analysis of the aim was imperative. Even if your motives are strong, it is by carefully analysing your aim that you really get perspective and become aware of whether there is a true purpose for the work you are about to start. Is the path you are taking likely to lead to improvements, either on a theoretical or a practical level? Or are you merely pursuing a personal line of enquiry?
Two important moments of truth offered the motives to continue.
i) The realisation that most objects are not discarded because they are worn out or no longer function physically. They might not even be technically obsolete or even physically irrelevant for a changing context. They are turned into waste for a number of other reasons, which seem to concern more mental irrelevance: we do not like them any more, we have in fact never liked them, we do not see any meaning in having them around, they do not contribute in any way. We think that we have found something better to replace them. Sometimes we simply explain our action with something being out of fashion. Is this the way we are, or are the main reasons to be found in the economic system, which is ruling western societies? Is this the way it has to be, we want it to be? Is there in fact a self-regulatory balance built into this system, which we should not intervene in? Is there knowledge to be found in various disciplines, which might be relevant and which might advise on how to arrive at another balance of benefit for the development of a sustainable society[3] and hence the economic system?
ii) The identification of a distinct pattern when researching a number of relevant disciplines: there is an overwhelming focus on human ways of living and methods to influence or change these. Are changes predictable and thus allowing futurism? Does this focus resulting from a general belief in the reflecting, rational human, controlling his or her actions? Might it be the un-reflected response indicating some kind of separation of body and mind? Are human ways of being normally recognised as giving rise merely to lower order actions? Is there enough evidence for a change of focus, or rather a widening, based on how human ways of being and living interact? Would rethinking on this level contribute to the understanding of the timeless?
It came as no surprise that there is very limited work done in this area of research. However, I was not prepared for the complexity of the subject. The initial quest to define my subject area has proven its importance and has become an integrated part of my core work. Advancing from an early interest in timelessness to a true understanding has required much time and effort. It has brought me from the initial idea to a fairly mature concept and has involved much re-thinking. The current habitual use of words like timeless, classic, eternal and so on as synonyms and without discrimination, in popular as well as academic context, has been very confusing. Considering that these words moreover are used un-knowingly, the patterns I have been trying to extract have been almost continuously distorted. Setting boundaries for the area of my research has been another part of the quest. The subject is abstract enough to risk spreading into an unmanageable number of disciplines. There are relationships, which have highly variable connotations although others are well defined.
As a result of the quest timelessness became obsolete and was replaced by affective sustainability. This change is conceptual and indicates where the quest led me: sustainability is a holistic concept, which needs to be further developed.
My hope is that already the denomination will start an imaginative process in the reader, which will then make my work more accessible. Willingness to rethink and an open mind are preconditions for all new understanding.
[1] As marketing professional, I developed over the years a niche competence in the role of design in communication.
[2] Paraphrasing Gadamer’s expression (Osborne, 1995)
[3] I will present my understanding of sustainability and ‘the Sustainment’ in chapter I, Introduction.
Abstract of my thesis
The phenomenon of timelessness has important connotations beyond its popular meaning. Although philosophical, timelessness is frequently applied to objects: there are various suggestions concerning the properties of a timeless object in literature and popular publications, but there is no apparent unanimity on how to realise these characteristics. The approach to sustainable development has broadened, but the impact of immaterial properties of objects needs to be further explored.
This thesis addresses these issues through cross-disciplinary research, which is located in industrial and product design and embraces the subject areas of history of design and art, philosophy, cultural studies, cognitive science and sustainable development. The research question is: what makes some objects retain their significance over time and in a changing human context?
Although the analyses of literature presented in this thesis have made it evident that the discourse on sustainability, including system thinking, has an apparent focus on material characteristics, there is nothing implicating opposition to an expanded view comprising immateriality. On the other hand, there are indications that the ambiguity of timelessness and related notions, including how the judgment is formed, causes confusion for designers pursuing longevity in objects.
The aim for this thesis is hence to address this ambiguity and introduce directions, which would allow designers to consider the immaterial qualities of objects when designing and thereby promote a more profound holistic approach to sustainability and sustainable design.
The thesis embarks on a deconstruction of timelessness, resulting in the phenomenon being conceptualised: affective sustainability, and subsequently explored through three applications. These initiate new lines of inquiry and allow for the thesis to conclude the key findings of the research.
The study concludes that affective sustainability is considered to be a lived experience. Re-considering sustainability and rethinking time, tradition, aesthetics and perception facilitate comprehension of affectively sustainable objects: a designer has to use intuitive judgements and to reach beyond the personal these have to be balanced by the verbal visualisation of thoughts and the study of un-reflected human behaviour outside laboratory settings.
Read the whole thesis
To read and download the whole thesis, go to www.borjesson-mk.se to retrieve a password.