Level Three Statement

It is my opinion that people, or consumers, do not value the role of the designer, nor do they acknowledge the design process. This is something I, as a person who intends to spend the rest of his career in the design industry, find simply offensive.

Although the consuming public professes to be design aware through their apparent constant thought about, and indeed changing of, the 'style' of their personal 'atmosphere'. I believe the 'Average Joe', has no idea what he is buying. He wonders headlessly through a sweetshop of glossy consumer encouragements which our city centers have become, with his purse strings violently slipping from his grasp, puking money as he is encouraged to purchase from the hip, for the moment, with the words 'oh go on it will make you feel better' ringing in his ears.

On Saturday afternoons he stands outside Dixons gripping his wallet, peering in at his next purchase, like a man staring at the electrified 3rd rail in an empty tube station the friday night before, thinking 'I wonder what it would feel like if I...?' But instead of thinking, 'actually life's ok', he thinks 'its only money' and he dives head first into the warmth of the un-know and makes a 'life changing' purchase, only to find out two years later that 32inches of widescreen won't make everything ok.

Perhaps if he'd thought about it, this wouldn't have happen. I don't mean if he'd researched prices on the internet or checked the products high definition readiness or even by checking if it contains functions capable of waking you up in the morning by gently showering you in the informative glow of news24. I mean perhaps if he'd considered that a £600 black box of wires and transistors may not be a remedy for long term happiness, then perhaps he could have made a more thoughtful, even more responsible purchasing decision.

But why should he? Everything he see' tells him to purchase 'fresh', and that its ok to purchase 'fresh' again when the first 'fresh' purchase 'goes off'. He's got the money and if he hasn't got it, it doesn't matter because there will be a 'fresh' financial product available to lend him the money. And the guy likes the feeling of get something new and 'fresh', and why the hell should he not buy? I'll tell you why he should buy simply enough... Everything he buys will ultimately disappoint him, it will let him down in time, it will need replacing, so why shouldn?t he fall in love with it for just a moment and enter a relationship doomed to failure. To experience that fraction of time when he pasts over the money and everything is new and novel, when every button opens a new door of possibility, a time when every knob twists him onto a new exciting facet, a new surface of his bolder sized gem. In that moment he takes his decision and he's falling; tumbling towards 300'000 volts and he's thinking 'damn I should have done this years ago?', then BAM!

He's dead and then nothing. Nothing but two boxes one made of wood, one made of plastic, one full of burnt human remains, one full of redundant plastic parts, both boxes full of nothing particularly relevant to anyone anymore. Both full of bits and bobs, buttons and knobs which we will never truly understand. Ultimately both examples of moments of lost human thought. Both examples of things we will never understand.

So how are we happy if we don't understand how something works? How can we become so attached to a box in our pocket that for all we know could be slowly killing us (oh? actually it is killing us). How can we be happy sharing our homes with a larger box which means we don't have to talk to our families anymore, and I would suppose many people couldn't tell you how the plug works on a television set let alone the rest of it. And ask them who made it? 'who cares?' ask them who told that person how to make it? 'who the fuck cares?'

We see only the immediate advantages of an object, we do not see a human thought process. So when those advantages and the features that provide these advantages to us, become obsolete we easily discard the object and any accompanying thought process which allow them to exist. A thought process, which at the time of conception was the meaning of someone. The meaning of a being, an understandable human one.

This lack of acknowledgement of the designer or of the design process, does not lead me to demand people do not own mobile phones or television sets, nor take a test on how the object works (a Television Licence?). But to simply acknowledge at point of purchase that this object was designed, and contains the thoughts people. It was designed by someone, it was made by someone, thus it has become a humane object.

Why not consider a mass produced object like you would consider a letter written by a now deceased person, or a doodle left on a post it note drawn by a mind which will never think again. Precious records of the thoughts which made up a moment in some ones existence.

Objects should exist not only as tools for our convience, but as records of experience, a record of the makers thoughts, and thus an object should become respected.

Perhaps, more importantly and accessibly to the consumer, products should exist as a record of the consumers thoughts at the point of purchase when that initial empathic connection was made, when love existed. Why shouldn't this moment be cherished?

With this in mind, when a persons objects are seen together a series of thoughts should appear, and why not, after all they were collected by the same mind. Peoples things should speak passionately about that individuals history. And an individuals history should be more thrilling than an annual day trip to Ikea, which could be considered as bland as a catalogue of 'off the shelf' human experiences, a 'paint by numbers' lifestyle in which we are instructed how to create 'our' ideal personal environment. Our objects should discuss our pasts, recording our histories like a documentary, or even better a soap opera, with highs and lows, tears and smiles, humour and tragedy with theatrical passion, timing and intrigue. Our possessions becoming a three dimensional memoir of personal experience, objects existing not only as the tools of everyday life, but as carriers of meaning, values and memories which remain so personal, they become an enigma to the outsider but its existence is acknowledge and respected. An unbreakable, but visible code, which documents all experience.

It is maybe the consuming publics lack of understanding of the design and manufacture of everyday mass-produced products, and hand-made objects alike, that leads us to disregard the humane qualities that already exist in all man-made goods, essentially that element of human thought.

Disregard of the thought filled human relationship between maker and product, allows an emotional separation to exists between product and user. This divorce of feeling between us and our material environment has put our society in a position where we are more than happy to dispose of an object when it becomes outmoded by the advancement of technology, or even worse when a once loved object becomes obsolete by the external thoughts and fashionable movements of the dictators of good taste.

This said it would be wrong to punish the movements of fashion and taste as the 'agent de provocateur' in the break down of object-human relationships. After all fashion itself exists, as the memoir of the thoughts of an entire culture, so should be cherished in the same way that an individual record of thought should be.

But why let a societies collective thought dictate the objects that we surround ourselves with? Moreover why let your own personal memoir of possessions be emotionally devalued by culturally movements in 'good' taste? Which in an increasing global mono-culture of taste could be dictated by guru's and media mogul's in any part of the world, professionals who's experiences will always remain separate from our own, and whose motives maybe influenced by a multitude of unfamiliar sources and may even be influenced by commercially interested parties who would see the replacing of existing products and the revenue created as beneficial.

The notion of buying 'fresh' to replace existing products, rather than enduring an existing products age induced eccentricities, has clearly become an environmental issue. As landfill sites fill to the brim with white goods, obsolete products which have become the visible fall out of failed owner-product relationships and are clearly symptomatic of our impending environmental crisis. However perhaps the failure of our owner-product relationships is not just an environmental issue but is becoming a social one? Does our inability to become thriftily sentimental about the objects we share our lives with, compare to our apparent inability to form life long, 'thrifty' inter-human relationships? Both require perseverance and the ability to understand each others needs. Or is this comparison to far fetched, after all the relationship between product and owner is more easily comparable to master and slave, after all the product only exists to serve the owner.

We clearly live in two environments, a psychological one, where we exist, our thoughts, our sentiments, our memories, and of course a material environment where our things exist , indeed this what we are made up of, body and soul. Why shouldn?t these separate environments become mutually beneficial to each other, or if not beneficial, they should become representative of each other, our psychological happiness becoming directly involved with our material happiness. Thus our wealth becomes measured in a balance of emotional well being with most importantly the people around us, but also the objects we keep around us.

Property is not theft. Property and the responsibilities of ownership has the opportunity to become a vent for self expression, an opportunity to tell stories about ourselves as emotionally wealthy individuals. And design should encourage and reward this approach to ownership.

-- JosephStebbing - 09 Jan 2007