Objectified

Yesterday in class we watched the movie “Objectified,” (2009) directed by Gary Hustwit. It was a great movie, and it was interesting to have the opinions of so many designers about how design affects society. The interview that stuck with me most however, because it was the only one which I fundamentally disagreed with, was one segment from Karim Rashid. In his interview, he was questioning why we contemporary people put up with outdated designs. Why we sit in dated furniture when technology has pushed us into the greater future. His complete detachment from history was surprising, especially to an art history student like myself.

I consider history to be the strongest identity a person can have, and I think that stylistic history is a large part of that. We don’t keep grandma’s couch because we think it is fashionable, or because we think it is the most comfortable thing available. We keep it for the memories that it holds, because those memories of grandma fulfill and satisfy us more than technologically-advanced design. Preference of style doesn’t even have to come from an heirloom. Some people prefer traditional chairs or traditional desks or whatnot because they say something about that person’s personality. Some of the other designers in “Objectified” mentioned this, and I think that it’s very important to understand that people chose designs for different reasons, because they want to project something about themselves. If someone chooses Victorian over contemporary design, it is because they have made a choice about how they want to represent their home and their life. They want to be perceived as a person who appreciates history, not as a person who looks to the future.

It seems close-minded that Rashid would suggest that contemporary design is the only right path. Modern lines and suprematist colors and minimalism are themselves all trends. The search for simplicity is a trend, not the final solution. Soon enough, I’m sure, designers will face a problem when they have simplified everything to it’s fullest. They will find that the design is lacking, and though it may be functional and completely ergonomic and of the highest efficiency, it might just lack personality. It would seem sterile, so bare-boned that it would turn into nothing more but a skeleton. And so design will turn back to decoration, back to historical references for inspiration.

In opposition to Rashid, I value design which recalls history, even if only in the planning stages. It shows respect and a willingness to learn from others, to take what has been done well: what is most utilitarian, what is the most psychologically comfortable, and to use that know knowledge to creating a better product. Though mankind lives in a technological age, we are still humans and not machines, and as such we require meaning in our lives, objects which have some value, not only in their function but also in what they represent.