Totem and Taboo.
Resemblances between the psychic lifes
of artists and designers
« The anxiety of art arises not as a reflex from the condition of artists, but from their reflection upon their role of art among other human activities. » (Harold Rosenberg)1
Art and design have always had a deep and thus complex relationship. Intertwined since the beginning of their story, they have both had to struggle for their autonomy and for their rights. History has recorded a cyclical relationship between the two, giving us an account of periods that have alternated between open dialogue and exchange and distance and isolation. Sometimes artists have experimented with design as an artistic endeavour, while some designers have deepened their research in the direction of art.
If design has always been open to research references in the fine arts, the interest of art in design has not only shifted but has greatly increased in the last few years. The artists have started again to experiment with the processes of a project culture, and the critics have once again started analyzing the possibilities of a concrete interaction between the two disciplines. This growing interest was evident at the last Venice Biennale, where Tobias Rehberger won the Golden Lion for his cafeteria and where the interactive works and services of artists like Rirkrit Tiravanija2and Massimo Bartolini3 were on display. The recent research published by the art historian Alex Coles4 on the so-called group of designer-artists is another sign that a serious and deep investigation is occurring in between the boundaries of design and art. However, the process is ongoing and the topic is still delicate and theoretically frail. The relationship between the two fields is, in fact, still problematic and ambiguous. As a well-known designer5 remembers, in one of the first experiments of mixing works of artists and designers together—the famous Documenta 86 curated by Manfred Schneckenburger— everything seemed to be integrated, apart from the artists and the designers themselves, who « never mixed … during the coffee-breaks ». A certain unsolved superiority complex also sometimes springs up. Although we live in an age of interdisciplinary exchanges, there still seems to be an unspoken prohibition against mixing art and design. But the autonomy of the research and the diversity of the aims of the two disciplines shouldn’t limit dialogue. Using Freud’s 1913 book as a metaphorical reference, if the ‹ ambivalent feelings › groups show towards each other are a clear sign of their brotherhood, this sort of ‹ dread of the incest › actually demonstrates their affiliation with the same ‹ totemic › group. Totem and Taboo focuses on the hopes and fears of a young generation of artists and designers and on their delicate, cross-pollinated relationship. Given the rise of a new hybrid category, the so-called art-fair and gallery genre DesignArt, contemporary players are trying to give their statements about new perspectives on the topic.
In 1993 Vilém Flusser wrote:
« The word design has managed to retain its key position in everyday discourse because we are starting (perhaps rightly) to lose faith in art and technology as a source of value. Because we are starting to wise up to the design behind them. »
His words still resonate today. Design cannot be read simply as a matter of designing objects and furniture but has to be conceived with an intention towards the real and as a practice that has to be carried out responsibly in the real world. Despite all of the speculative bubbles surrounding the DesignArt objects, the urgency of a direct dialogue between designers and artists is becoming more topical every day, especially in a society that needs to re-project itself, keep in step with the technological evolution and face the social, political and ecological problems of the new millennium. —Elena Agudio
1 Harold Rosenberg: The Anxious Object, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1966, p. 16.
2 The bookshop of the Palazzo delle Esposizioni in the Gardens of the Venice Biennale.
3 The educational space of the Palazzo delle Esposizioni.
4 Alex Coles: DesignArt, Tate Publishing, 2005 and Alex Coles: Design and Art, Whitechapel and The MIT Press, 2007.
5 cfr. Deyan Sudjic, Ron Arad: Cose di cui la gente non ha veramente bisogno, Postmedia Books, 2003.
6 Dokumenta 8 took place in Kassel, Germany from 12/6 to 20/9/1987.
We call it design … and so it is
« I say, ‹ There is a chair.› What if I go up to it, meaning to fetch it, and it suddenly disappears from sight? ‹ So it wasn’t a chair, but some kind of illusion.› But in a few moments we see it again and
are able to touch it and so on. ‹ So the chair was there after all and its disappearance was some kind of illusion.› But suppose that after a time it disappears again—or seems to disappear. What are we to say now? Do you have rules ready for such cases—rules saying whether one may use the word chair to include this kind of thing? But do we miss them when we use the word chair; and are we to say that we do not really attach any meaning to this word because we are not equipped with rules for every possible application of it? »
(Ludwig Wittgenstein)8
At first glance furniture doesn’t appear to consist of difficult-to-touch objects. Everybody has an image of what is meant when we talk about furniture. A couch or a stool, an armchair or an entire bedroom suite—all of these evoke certain concrete images. If one follows Martin Heidegger’s9 conceptual order of ‹ things › and ‹ stuff ›, ‹ things › are objects that we have in this world at our disposal and ‹ stuff › is what is needed for the production of ‹ things ›. Heidegger derived this classification out of the German language using the terms ‹ Zeug › or ‹ Schreibzeug ›. Thus, furniture is obviously a ‹ thing ›. In turn ‹ things › are different from natural objectsas well as art through a clear functional assignment to which we can attribute a targeted use. In this context it is also basically the character of design to be unambiguous.
What happens if functionality is not the greatest priority of the design or if the point is not to use the object? Don’t we have to follow Wittgenstein? Are we still able to talk about a piece of furniture or a design if they are not used in the conventional sense? As objects between real estate and paraphernalia, furniture is representative of personality. To arrange one’s things is also a means of both creating and showing identity. Objects of everyday use are therefore social objects and wares. They are cultural assets and even proof of our technological history. In this respect furniture is a central object with which we communicate. In the title of our exhibition, the totem stands for this motif. In the religion of Native Americans, the totem is the object that both represents one’s ancestors and provides the means of spiritual contact with them. Furniture (or furnishings in general) takes over the function of representation. In this way objects communicate through their context and through their milieu. In contrast to the oft-cited credo ‹ form follows function ›10, which has dominated the training and evaluation in design, a new consciousness of design developed in the 1980s.The Totem by Etorre Sottsass, already created in the 1960s and then executed in different versions, can be understood as a precursor to a new movement in design11. This design has been established and staged along different conceptual lines by the group Memphis and by Martine Bedine, Gaetano Pesce, Andrea Branzi and later by Jurgen Bey, Martino Gamper and others as an open discipline. Early on, artists like Donald Judd, Franz West or Richard Artschwager made expressions of identity through their work with furnishings in art installations as well as with individual pieces. The resulting pieces are works of art or designs that constitute a new class of work that exists on the borders of disciplines and for which there is still not a new definition12. This step into autonomy is of special meaning for design. The work of the designer as author has been reconceptualized since the 1980s. Since the founding of design museums which represent the design’s demand for autonomy, it has established itself through the convention of dealing with the object, the ‹ Work of Design ›.
Something has happened with those ‹ things › so that the pieces don’t yet appear as anything but furniture. Deyan Sudijc (director of Design Museum London) speaks of new pieces which we encounter as either plain pieces or as shapeless furniture. They’re sensational or of a reserved simplicity, but in meaning they demand much more than is common for this kind of design; they’re autonomous works of design. In this regard, they’re pieces that have become more than simply pieces. In the lovely words of Rudolph Arnheim, « They have taken on the form of a thought. »13
—Tido von Oppeln
8 Ludwig Wittgenstein: Tractatus logico philosophicus und Philosophische Untersuchungen, Frankfurt a. M . 1984, S. 285 f (§ 80)
9 Martin Heidegger: Der Ursprung des Kunstwerkes, Reclam 1965.
10 The original quotation is taken from the extract: The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered, which is about the architecture of skyscrapers and says: « Whether it be the sweeping eagle in his flight, or the open apple-blossom, the toiling work-horse, the blithe swan, the branching oak, the winding stream at ist base, the drifting clouds, over all the coursing sun, form ever follows function, and this is the law. Where function does not change, form does not change.» Louis H. Sullivan, 1896, p. 111.
11 The object Chiara di Luna, 1967 from the totem series by Etorre Sottsass, which the exhibition is showing, is from the year 1982 and is a loan from the collection Wolfgang Maurer in Munich.
12 D eyan Sudijc: The Language of Things, « But with the appearance of the work of Marc Newson or Ron Arad in art galleries, some kind of transgressive line has been crossed. … Now we are being offered an entirely different category of object… », London 2008, p. 67.
13 Rudolf Arnheim: Kunst und Sehen, eine Psychologie des schöpferischen Auges, De Gruyter, Berlin 2000.
|