In his article, Toffler talks about “things” and our fading relationships with them. I can remember when I got my first cell phone. Even though it was a flip phone and had no internet connection available (that was the next one), I was in love with it. I had it on me at all times, I made calls and sent texts I didn’t have to just because I could. The thing is…I can’t for the life of me remember what phone it was. 7 or 8 years ago I could not put it down, and now I can’t even remember what it looked like. I cannot imagine that happening with my current phone, but maybe it will. In a throw-away society we are always ready to move on to the newer and better “things.” I very much like the mobile I have now, but even my contract is set up so that I can trade it in for the newer version just a year after getting this one. Banham also speaks about the life of the material objects we own, saying that it is “clearly absurd to demand that objects designed for a short useful life should exhibit qualities signifying eternal validity.” For some “things” we are starting to see, like the paper dresses and new and improved Barbies that Toffler talks about, this is true. They are meant to be used and discarded when they are no longer needed. I don’t think this means, however, that they cannot be designed well. I may be biased, but I think that apple is very good at continually marketing new beautifully designed products. They want to put a certain esthetic quality into their work, but they also understand that soon it will be outdated and useless. I found what Toffler said about the same being true for architecture to be quite alarming, but true. I learned recently why reclaiming wood and other materials from old buildings is so valuable. It is now possible to grow trees more quickly, which is good for the amount of lumber that is being produced, but the quality is terrible. Because the trees grow wider more quickly, the rings are farther apart, meaning that the wood is less dense and therefore less strong. So, in some ways, we don’t have a choice. The world is no longer equipped for a culture that lasts.
One of the themes in this week’s readings is designing for the long term, or projective thinking (projective designing?). Banham argued that products should be thought about, from the pre-design stage onward, how they will or will not live a long life and if they do how they will be regarded. Will they been seen as great artifacts or crappy remnants of the past? He uses Bugatti and Buick engines as comparative examples where the Bugatti engine, obviously much more expensive, has the obligation to create a super sleek and impressive design. To accomplish this, the engine, courteous of its designers, is simplified on the outside; the major workings and components are hidden from the eye, and in addition, the engine can only be serviced from the side. The big criticism here is that the functionality and interworking of the engine are hidden where from an engineering standpoint is the beauty of the engine. The Buick engine, however, showcases the engineering which also allows for easier access (from the top). Banham states that is the more beautiful piece of engineering, which even more interestingly, results with a significantly lower price tag. The crux of this comparison is that if a man far into the future comes across two ancient artifacts, a Bugatti and a Buick engine sitting side by side, that of the Buick would be favored.
In subtraction, Easterling discusses the increasing interest in the use and deconstruction of buildings. It has gotten to a point where components of a to-be deconstructed building are essentially ‘put up on craigs list’ and the avid sustainable consumers we are are scrounging it up as fast as we can. Similar to the foresight of aforementioned product life, more and more the lifecycle of buildings is being thought about in the design process. This Includes the design for adaption reuse, where a building designed for a specific function can easily be converted to a different function after its initial use as well as designing the building with the intent of deconstruction to maximize the efficiency in the tear down and disposal/recycling of materials.
These readings really get the mind rolling around incorporating projective thinking in the design process rather than just designing for the moment. What we design, whether products or buildings do not just serve a purpose to us people now, but also will affect future generations in some way and it is our responsibility as designers to do what we can to make that effect as positive as we can.
Throwaway culture is deeply embedded in the social psyche. i think that today (Specially in the united states) we are used to being able discard any product because we have the possibility (and infrastructure) to produce more. Back at home, when you are designing a building, you have to take into account that it will be in place for a while. here you can designing something like a (throwaway building) which can be razed and the site reused in a fraction of that time. I think that we have sacrificed aesthetics in favor of functionality. as said by the example put forward by Banham, the engine that can be accessed and serviced more easily is much more efficient (honest and beautiful) than the one machined and adjusted for aesthetics. Do not get me wrong, i do agree with Loos on the idea that ornament is primitive, but if this ornament is a byproduct of functionality, then everyone wins.
So this week in principle, I might have to disagree with some of the things that Banham is suggesting. While I agree with him saying that it is “absurd to demand that objects designed for a short useful life should exhibit signifying eternal validity,” I am not sure if I agree with his overall notion that everything should be continued to be made for a “throw away economy.” In this economy that we live in, we are always searching for the next best/cheapest form of an instant gratification for our consumerist hunger. This has resulted in products that are tailored to only last as long as we are interested in them, but decay as soon as are interest is sparked by the next provocative product. I understand how this has come to be developed, but I can’t help but disagree with this notion entirely. There is a time and a place for goods that are cheaply made and then discarded. However, I think that there should be a resurgence in quality products that are meant to stand the test of time. We have all been frustrated by cheap products not living up to our expectations and then tossing them and grabbing the next cheap replacement. I believe that a quality functional product is naturally imbued with good design sensibilities because it is forced to be useful in its decision making. Having quality over quantity would reduce the waste that is created from a constant throw away mentality. It would also raise the amount of skilled labor jobs that allow for people to actually support themselves comfortably. While I do not think that there is a single eternal validity in a design, I do believe that design to force some notions of a sustainable lifecycle.
In the article A throw-away aesthetic, Banham discussed the fine arts and popular arts and instances by automobile. Automobile is a good example to explain the relation among consumers, markets, personal values and world trends. Along with technologies evolved, mechanic beauty is being considered as a presence of a balance of well-function and elegance form: operating smoothly creates aesthetics, and operating depends on how the gears functioned.
However, when it speaks of purchase behavior, it becomes a contradictions between affordability and wish, which is, reality and dream. If I could, I would choose an Aston Martin Vanquish instead of a much cheaper Ford Focus. The market knows it, everyone knows it. Does the decision of a Ford Focus means lacking of aesthetic taste? I don’t think so.
Hence, I’d rather suppose the popular arts is all because of economy. Moreover, economy controls everything. Popular arts is like fast fashion outfit, it costs lower because of automated, it is much more easier for people to discard and replace, it has various selection for people to choose (a limited various selection such as many colors and sizes, optional accessories, etc.). Nevertheless, the popular arts gradually become the mainstream aesthetics because its everywhere by feeding us their cheap economy result.
Commodity, furniture, cloth, jewelry, shoes, toy, kitchenware. All of those things in our daily life are disposable. Those things are manufactured by module, and we are getting to used of its aesthetic and being pushed by its short life span. We, ourselves can also be moduled, make up, shape wear, surgery, we are happy to being moduled, like all of those who appear on television, those ephemeral, quickly beauty. We are brianwashed by this fast manufactured culture. We are making ourselves plastic Barbie dolls.
By choosing an affordable, cheaper, not-so-beautiful option, we are becoming a part of this vicious circle. We are sculptured as a part of this culture. ” Good night tv, You’re all made up, And you know that” in Blur’s End of a Century, the lyric says so, “It’s nothing special.”
The chapters of Future Shock by Alvin Toffler brought up good social, political, economical, and technological points in regards to how different levels of societies view their possessions. It was not shocking to find out all the things we throw away everyday, I noticed while I was reading that how many people were throwing out coffee cups that if they had bought a re-usable one they could have just refilled. I never thought of all the things we take for granted like paper products like tissues vs handkerchiefs. Everything in todays society is made to be thrown out and reused, there is a lot of information that suggests that the Iphone batteries are manufactured to only last a year or two so that people have to buy new batteries before the rest of the phone dies. Many of the things we purchase to eat are in disposable containers, my recent dinner that I purchased came in a styrofoam container, my pop came in a plastic bottle. The bottle itself is recyclable and can be reused but wasn’t really designed for it. Technology on the other hand has been improving so fast that throwing out your current piece of technology and getting the latest and greatest makes everything “faster.” Fads on the other hand that come and go are a great way to move a bunch of products that are not meant to be around a long time and then when they are no longer popular then they are thrown away. There are a lot of things that can be easily thrown away and technology has only perpetuated this.
The future shock paper definitely was a good read. The beginning really got me thinking about how today’s society has transformed on every level due to our “throw away” mentality. From a psychological standpoint to the physical world. People are users and abusers and take for granted the fact that the resources we have are limited. Plastic shopping bags are ridiculous. At the store I have to tell the person performing the transaction that I do not want a bag every single time. I guess it is just second nature to them to put it in a plastic bag. People who keep their things are stereotyped as hoarders and this is because they’re beliefs are based on permanence and see the value in keeping things for future use.
Another favorite part of mine is when the topic is shifted from transience to impermanence. As the topics shift they built on themselves though. How the author related our everyday lifestyle to the “throw away” mentality was very fascinating. The fact that as time has progressed the switch to apartment housing in the United States has sky rocketed. An interesting point was made that says, “It might be noted that millions of American home ‘owners,’ having purchased a home with a down payment of ten percent of less, are actually no more than surrogate owners for banks and other lending institutions. For these families, the monthly check to the back is no different from the rent check to the landlord. Their ownership is essentially metaphorical, and since they lack a strong financial stake in their property, they also frequently lack the homeowner’s strong psychological commitment to it.” After reading that it made me realize that a mortgage is the exact same thing as renting. The foreclosure of a home is a terrible thing but it often happens to those who live in transience. It is embedded into their physiological wellbeing that everything is disposable.
A quote that really intrigued me says, “‘No one – not even the most brilliant scientist alive today – really knows where science is taking us,’ says Ralph Lapp, himself a scientist-turned-writer. ‘We are aboard a train which is gathering speed, racing down a track on which there are an unknown number of switches leading to unknown destinations. No single scientist is in the engine cab and there may be demons at the switch. Most of society is in the caboose looking backward.'” I completely agree with this quote because Ralph Lapp is right, who knows where technology will take us in the future? This is a topic that is very mysterious. I think that in intellectuals need to have a general idea as to where to steer technology. It seems as though societies are acting on impulse without any real goal in mind. Technology is like a perpetual motion machine that was sent into motion by our ancestors. As a generation it is up to us to guide technology down a path that is beneficial to society instead of creating a monster that we do not know its capabilities.
Decision, choice, “buy now”, “you might like”, pre –packed, pre-made, latest model, faster, newer , “related products”, “you might be also interested in”, on line purchasing, “order it online”, free shipping…
Everything is on speed, plenty amount of products, goods, or information e.c., which we cannot absorb. If products are more than people, they should try more than one of everything. And that’s how everything will be temporary. Nothing is permanent.
Addition, deletion, edition, modification. Change; rate of change. Desire to diversity. “let’s go to US and study architecture”. Nothing is permanent.
Evan relationships, short-term relationships, short term friendships, short contacts, no long-lasting collusion. Individuals which are temporary individuals. “let’s be a different person.” Let’s go and have a beauty surgery.” Nothing is permanent.
Nothing is permanent. If our understanding of aesthetics come from our experience, near to what Kant said more than two hundred years ago, our sense of beauty is not permanent too. It changes, why not? My cellphone was beautiful when I purchased it, but it went displeasing after a while. There is nothing wrong with the mentioned statement. However what if people extend this approach to individuals like their wives, husbands, friends etc.
House, the new house, a new house just in place of the old one. “let’s move in to a bigger/newer house”. Nothing is permanent. If nothing is permanent and this is kind of obvious why don’t designers, creators, builders etc., don’t think about the demolition of their result or product. 5 phases of a project generally are considered as: 1)project conception and initiation.2)project definition and planning.3)project lunch and excecution. 4)project performance and control. And finally, 5)project close. I think it is the time to add another equally important phase; project demolition .
I remember the first time I decided to have a cellphone. There were lots of different models and all of them were beautiful. After couple of years I lost this feeling about my own cellphone; It was not beautiful anymore. There are many advantages in throw away of things as many of them are discussed in Banham’s article. I want to argue that aesthetic and our definition of being beautiful is subject to constant change over time. That’s why we are happy to throw away our used objects. Even the scene of destruction is becoming a beautiful scene these days. humans tend to erase all the foot prints of their passed Zeitgeist in favor of the new one they admire. All these senses of happiness and pleasure of discarding things can be analyzed like a psychological factor. As seen in Toffler text, we prefer not to have something but to do something or be someone. I want to explain this will as our present-self’s respect for our future-self. Before the modern age, a generation could not see enough changes in lifestyle to understand the power of that changes and feel that human being is facing a transitory beauty rather than an eternal one. The pace of events hardly made a generation shocked about the influences of technology developments. In contrary, the modern human understands that there is no eternal rule for an object to be beautiful or even useful. I don’t want to underestimate the technical developments and economical aspects of our will to throw away but in my opinion those psychological aspects have a very great impact on our consumption habits. We understand that owning an object means that we will have feeling to that thing later and a time will come that our future-self stop using that object and therefore avoid having it anymore. The emotions one may have to an object may cause a sense of loss or missing it that can bother us. That’s why we prefer to rent things to prevent all the cycle with a painful end. In this case many of our behaviors according to objects are in the way that we can get rid of them easily.
I mentioned how Zeitgeist affect The shortening of lifespan of objects, spaces, buildings and etc. on the other hand this cycle of build and destruction make time marked by objects. If considering the paintings of medieval ages as reflectors of the habits and lifestyle of kings and knits living in that era, (which is a very discussing consideration) In my point of view one can hardly say that a painting, which he or she is meeting for the first time, belongs to 14th or 15th century. The objects used in centuries remained constant. In some cases, for example some special objects like swords or crowns may refer to the same object which was used during centuries. Compare this effect with modern photos of 60s and 70s. one can immediately understand the differences between two decades. even the context of two images are not the same. Referring to Banham piece one is clearly an aristocratic scene elaborately painted regarding the style which represented the eternal beauty while the other one can be interpreted as a sample of pop art.
Toffler argues we live in a throw away society. I think this is prettymuch fact, however he goes on to argue that modular constructions of Cedric Price are still throw away. I’m not so sure. His argument takes the premise that because the environment changes, we are throwing away the old environment. In premise, this is true, but certainly this is better than throwing away building material to make a new environment? If we look back in human history, we as a species have historically been nomadic for the bulk of our existence. It’s unnatural to be in the same environment for such a long time; that’s not to say that it’s wrong, however. So it really only seems natural that we like changing environments. Doing this in the least destructive way is what’s key to making it not “throw away.” Sure, if we want to call changing an environments’ organization throw away we can, but isn’t it design’s responsibilty to respond to needs? If this is presented as a need then modularity seems to address it in the least destructive way possible. Being “throw away” is fine, as long as it truly isn’t throw away. Here, I would argue, it is not.
