histories and theories

Matthew Edgson/ 33266636

2

3

Questioning the Collection 4

Observing the Everyday 9

A Critical Reflection 15

Bibliography 18

C O N T E N T S

4

Figure 1- The exhibited glass block

5

A DISPL AY WITHOUTT R A N S P A R E N C Y

QUESTIONING THE COLLECTION

MAKING 80mm OPTIC LENSPAUSED AT 10% COMPLETION

IN T HE

6

Situated inside “In the Making” is a crys-tal glass block, destined to be formed into optic lenses. It’s manipulation of light immediately attracts the eye; which is a result of the addition of lead into the glass, making it more refractive. Position-ing the block between two dull objects emphasises it’s glistening aesthetic.

The narratives behind production were not fully integrated into the exhibition. The only information provided on the plaque (see figure 2) is that it is of unnat-ural origins, and it’s destined form. “We want to demystify how these objects are made”(Barber and Osgerby, 2014: p3), but only a fraction of the vast shroud which is the mysteries behind produc-tion is lifted in this display. In attempting to promote the design process over the outcome, the museum has focused this exhibition on another series of objects.

“Aura” is where “associations and events are gathered around an artifact”(Shanks, 1998: section 6), and exploration into the history of optic lenses would have gath-ered and established a pool of associa-tions for this object beyond being a piece of glass which enhances vision.

7

Telescopes have evolved immensely from the first refracting devices from the Neth-erlands in 1608 through to 20th century developments involving electromagnetic wavelengths. Establishing a strong “aura” about this glass would have contextual-ised it, allowing the viewer to establish where in it’s vast timeline it sits.

To refine from this block to a finished lens is a highly technical process, which has evolved with new technology, becoming accelerated and more precise. The prod-uct brochure highlights certain- museum selected- production stages, including slicing via diamond blades and smooth-ing via a grinding shell, but this brochure was quite easy to miss. Should there have been more emphasis on the technologi-cal advancements in optics? After all, it is what this artefact embodies.

For an exhibition which prides itself for focusing on what lies beyond the prod-uct, there are many narratives within it’s existence which are omitted. The ques-tion now why would the Design museum want to conceal what solidifies the con-text of this glass, and it’s place in the ever growing network of design history?

Figure 2- The product’s accompanying plaque

8

RESPONSE 2: IMAC G3- LUKE GLOVER

For an exhibition titled “Extraordinary Stories, Ordinary Objects”, the iMac was confusing- it is an extraordinary object for how it revolutionised computing, but has a rather bland narrative history when compared to other objects in this collec-tion. I agree that this product represents an “important moment” concerning com-puting, but it’s display alludes to some-thing beyond this product. Advertising and a designer biography was not fea-tured around other items in the exhibi-tion. I see no reason for it, other than a way for the Design Museum to shoehorn Jonathan Ive into the exhibition as a sym-bol of British innovation.

RESPONSE 1: PAUL SMITH’S FIRST SHOW-ROOM- LUCY SHARPE

I agree that the representation is a ro-manticised memory, reinforced by the hand drawn aesthetic of the furniture. The scale allows us to walk through it, becom-ing immersed in the mind of Paul Smith. I also agree that the romanticisation is most likely an inaccurate reconstruction.

I was intrigued by the accompanying nar-rative, depicting a revealing story of his early struggles, but then moves swiftly onto a second event depicting the oppo-site: success, crowds and alcohol. In cu-rating his own exhibition, Paul Smith has managed to underpin each failure in his journey with eventual success, re-enforc-ing his ego.

9

STUDYING THE ENVIRONMENT OF A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT

HOW DOES IT INFLUENCE THE CUSTOMERS/ DINERS?

CHOSEN RESTAURANT: KFC,

137-141 HIGH STREET NORTH, EAST HAM,

E6 1HZ

I N V I S I B L E B A R R I E R S

O B S E R V I N G T H E E V E R Y D A Y

10

Tables

BinPartitions

Counter Chairs

Graphic Display Board

Area 1 Area 2

Figure 3- Mapping the layout of the restaurant

11

Why are the tables in area 1 so close together? How can the din-ers be so close and take no interest of one another? It were as if invisible boundaries were formed by each diner around their table with the sole purpose to isolate or withdraw, similar to how headphones do on a tube train.

Even more fascinating was how each diner seemed to have their own boundaries, and a respect for everyone else’s. There was no interaction between customers as if blocked by a physical obstruction- despite this blockage being a purely metaphysical product of a collective imagination. So for me, being in this area but not obeying the “laws” laid out by this unspoken etiquette with my overactive, penetrating eyes, I felt more aware that I was not utilising my own invisible barriers.

In comparison with Japanese style restaurant Wagamama, there is a dynamic difference. Here, the tables are arranged in such a way that strangers dine together at long bench tables- encour-aging the customer to embrace interaction whilst eating, thus breaking down these invisible barriers the diner builds up. This forms a more active dining experience through exposing the diner to the unfamiliar and in turn, forbids them from retreating behind their familiar barrier.

Whether the environment of the KFC restaurant was designed to form this isolating behaviour or if it exists to enhance it is unclear. What is clear is that it reflects the busy nature of London, where people are constantly rushed and have no time for strangers, and a new system needs to evolve which, like the Wagamama system, encourages a more active involvement in eating and discourages an isolated dining experience.

12

Figure 4- Mapping the coverage of certain display boards inside the restaurant

13

REAL MEALS, AWESOME FL AVOUR, MOUTHWATERING, REAL CHICKEN, GREAT TASTE

“Why are these slogans inside?” I continually asked myself, refer-ring to numerous display boards around the restaurant branded with these words seeming out of place inside the restaurant.

On closer observation, I then realised that wherever a person sat, they were within view of at least one of these boards (see figure 2). So why is it important for the diners to see these boards? Why are they so broad, with no clear target? Is it so that they become so indirect that they can reach both the people in area 2 (from figure 1)and infiltrate the invisible boundaries formed by the din-ers in area 1?

The content and positioning of these boards seems to be a de-vice to convey subliminal messages to the diners- deployed by an institution to manipulate people into thinking that they are eat-ing something which is much better than it actually is, similar to the design museum’s omitting of historical information about the optic lens in favour of what was seen in their eyes as more impor-tant. Also similar to Albert Speer’s work, whose design of the New Reich Chancellery made use of rich materials and large rooms to make people feel- in Hitler’s words- the “power and grandeur of the German Reich”(1970, page 103).

Manipulation through design as a technique has been utilised throughout history. We, as consumers, need to be more aware of the deployment of these devices in both professional and eve-ryday contexts, and also consider what that particular institution wants us to think, or what are they not including- and why?

14

15

U N D E R S T A N D I N G T H E

P E R S O N A L // I N S T I T U T I O N A L

T E N S I O N

A C R I T I C A L R E F L E C T I O N

“IT IS THE WORLD THAT HAS BEEN PULLED OVER YOUR EYES TO BLIND YOU FROM THE TRUTH”

-MORPHEUS, 1999, THE MATRIX

16

It has been established that design his-tory is formed by an overarching insti-tution, which omits certain viewpoints in favour of others. Removing myself from the normalcy of the design muse-um’s environment allowed me to look objectively at the displays and experi-ence this firsthand.

In hindsight, I was naïve concerning ex-hibitions before this course; accepting what the institution displayed as cor-rect. Since this instance, I often wonder what other institutions conceal on a daily basis? From other galleries/ mu-seums in their exhibitions to restaurants in their menus, to name a few.Figure 5- My satchel

and it’s degradation

WHAT IS MY POSITION IN DESIGN?

This question was posed in the first “Histories and Theories” lecture.

17

If institutions have the power to conceal, then the stories that an artefact procures through it’s exist-ence will surely be lost. After be-ing introduced to the work of Mi-chael Shanks, I read “Experiencing the Past”, telling of objects being “stripped” of the “contexts which the archaeologist values” by the “antiquary” (Shanks, 1992: p99). In reflection, this concept is mirrored in the display of the optic lens- stripped of all historical context.

I was also fascinated by the idea that the “pot found by an archae-ologist is not what it was”(Shanks, 1998: section 12), and the implica-tion that the evolution an object undergoes is greater than it’s origi-nal state.

This can be evidenced in one of my own possessions (see figure 5). On it are several marks acquired from scrapes and collisions. Whereas the institutional voice would prefer a pristine specimen, I embrace the degradation after reading “The Life of an Artefact”, as it contrib-utes to defining the bag’s identity.

The session on “Authoring Design” was pivotal for me, as it opened my eyes to the impact of the user- as someone who “holds together in a single field all the traces by which the written text is constituted” (Barthes, 1977: p. 148). Among other things, this made me consid-er- for any design I produce- how a user would react to the work. How will it respond when they bare their own associations and experiences to this object?

Barthes also confirmed another is-sue about which I had reservations. In English at secondary school, I was taught that there was one cor-rect interpretation of a text- what the author meant- which is obvi-ously wrong. So why? If the school is an institution, performance tar-gets equal high exam marks, so while an individual interpretation may be a richer response, it may not conform to the predefined marking criteria. So the teacher filtered out answers which didn’t conform, benefiting the institution. It seems that I have been subjected to the their powers for some time.

18

Inverting the institution. Return-ing power to the people. Consid-ering the institutional power, are these mere fantasies? Or achiev-able futures? How can design be used as a tool for shaping a future free from the grip of an institu-tional voice with a socially, po-litically, technologically and eco-nomically balanced voice. I was posed a question at the start of this course. But if I, as a designer, make things which change the fu-ture, the question to ask really is: WHAT IS MY

RESPONSIBILITY AS A DESIGNER WHO EXISTS OUTSIDE OF THE SHROUD OF THE INSTITUTIONAL NATURE OFDESIGN?

19

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

•Barthes.R.,1970,Chopsticks,fromEmpire of Signs, NewYork,HillandWang.•Speer.A.,1970,Inside the Third Reich,NewYork,Macmillan.

•TheMatrix (1999), dir: Andy Wachowski & Lana Wachowski, USA: Warner Bros.•Barthes. R., 1977, TheDeathoftheAuthorinHeath,S.,Ed. fromImageMusicText, London, Fontana Press.•Shanks. M., 1992, ExperiencingthePast:OntheCharacterofArchaology, New York, Routledge.•Shanks. M., 1998, TheLifeofanArtefact, can be found here- http://documents.stanford.edu/MichaelShanks/229?view=print (Accessed 24th March 2014)

•E.Barber&J.Osgerby,2014,In The Making exhibition cata-logue,London,DesignMuseum.•Shanks.M.,1998,The Life of an Artefact,canbefoundhere-http://documents.stanford.edu/MichaelShanks/229?view=print(Accessed22ndMarch2014)

Articles for responses can be found here:•http://goldsmithshistoriestheories.wordpress.com/2014/02/03/lucy-sharpe-paul-smiths-first-showroom/(Accessed22ndMarch2014)•http://goldsmithshistoriestheories.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/imac-g3-luke-glover/(Accessed21stMarch2014)

A C R I T I C A L R E F L E C T I O N

O B S E R V I N G T H E E V E R Y D A Y

QUESTIONING THE COLLECTION

Matthew Edgson/ 33266636