A world under bombardment

While Londoners were fleeing the city during the long Easter weekend, this was actually a good time for a foreigner like me to check out what’s hot in the capital’s museums. Victoria and Albert was, of course, in the top of my list. This was where I happened to see two pieces of furniture that belonged to a period which I think is very much worth looking furhter into—a period that witnessed a movement called the Utility Furniture Scheme.

Starting in the UK, during the harsh conditions of mid-WWII and lasting for a decade, this scheme was basically a reaction to the material shortages (specifically timber) experienced in furniture production. The main objective was to bring about a more responsible approach to furniture design, so that scarce available resources were used in a sensible way. The reach of its precautions went as far as restricting furniture purchase only to newly-weds and people who had been bombed out.

As arid as this period of British design history might seem to be, I think there lays an inspirational experience for us designers of the 21st century. As the designers of a nation under heavy bombardment and siege—therefore extremely severe conditions—how would you design and develop products that will not bring further destruction to the resources of your country, and which are still beautiful, durable and functional? (Here, I think the designs being beautiful is exceptionally important, since this will help people hold on to life).

Frankly, it is not so difficult to make a comparison between that period of recent history and today. As nonsense as it would be to impose the oppressive restrictions of that time, it is fair to request from today’s designers to ask themselves this question while doing their job: Does the world need a table, a chair, etc. made of “x material”?

And some further questions arise:
Do we have to wait for wartime conditions to act?
If wartime is what urgently requires the sensible and responsible usage of resources of a nation then, in terms of resource usage, are we not in wartime?

Just think of the whole world as a single nation.

Link to the Wikipedia article about the Utility Furniture Scheme

Read more!

Easy being green

A recent piece of writing I had read in a Turkish newspaper reveals it all about a personal greenwash. The Stockholm correspondent of this newspaper had sent an article about the poshness of being green in the Swedish capital, in which she told how “in” it was to go down on the street, to the recycling bin, and finally to recycle your waste, and let everyone see you during the process.

While that seems to be the case in Western Europe, one would find it really difficult to hold onto a green lifestyle in Turkey, since there is a huge lack of awareness of the issue. However, as careless are the businesses and people in Turkey about sustainability, a newcomer to the UK might get just as tired of seeing so many words like green, eco, sustainable, etc. It’s big business here.

While it may now be considered a breakthrough move for a Turkish company to call itself green, it’s not differentiating enough to be green here in the UK—and generally in most of Western Europe. In fact, it is actually “easy being green”.

The thing is, what we had considered to be diverse a decade ago, is not as diverse today. Transportation is much faster, as is communication, which allows a crazy flow of information all around the world. What all this brings as a side effect is that there is now a much more vague definition to being unique. We cannot be sure anymore that what nourishes us is not an inspiration for someone else too.

In an environment where everyone is green, maybe it is best to be as transparent as possible about the way you do business–or you live your life in general—and let the ones around you make the judgement. (So goes the general approach of Pli Design, as Christopher Pett puts it.)

Do the Stockholmers really care about the environment and strive to do their part, or are they just showing off in a street catwalk?

Are the businesses here really green, or is it just the marketability of the word itself what makes them green?

Lastly, and more controversially, do the customers really want to know if the companies they prefer are really green, or are they are comfortable enough only to be seen carrying a logo of a company which is known to be green?

After all, it’s not that easy being transparent.

Read more!