Ivar Björkman

Window in the Wall, India and China – Imaginary Conversations, is the title of an exhibition at Pearl Lam gallery in Shanghai.  One piece by Li Zhanyang  ”the Contemplation of the Four Great Figures” in the exhibition shows Marx, Lenin, Mao and Stalin sitting and contemplating on the same spot in the floor.

The work is of course interesting in many ways. Are they just contemplating or are they sitting there asking the same question: What has happened to our ideas and visions? Are we lost in translation or?  Or are they sitting contemplating about what shall we do now? Is there anything in our visions that we did miss?  They would of course feel lost if they were alive today. Suddenly you realize that they where as important for that has become today as those who are declaring their winning thoughts. Their mistakes have created a counter reaction that we now are witnessing. What would happen if Europe, USA and the east started in the same competition 100 years ago with the same model of democracy in their backpack? Probably USA would not have been number one for a long time. The world would of course have suffered less in many ways.  Is it perhaps that they are contemplating about. You could hear them whisper: Why didn’t I think about that? Because they are stuck in their own visions I would say. They sit there by themselves. No one is around them. – And that they where men.

http://windowinthewallexhibition.com/

It’s all about meaning – layers of meaning you would say, but with different expectations.

It’s like going to Shanghai. You are looking for new meanings; something that you hope will be some kind of original or have a solid meaning. I was happy when I found this bag – they selves on top of the actual store made it in the shop.

Suddenly you get the feeling that this is what meaning is about, finding some kind of source of what makes you believe. Here you could see the whole production line. But do we care about that? I do, but that has probably to do with my naïve belief that there is some kind of original. (I am very modernistic, not so postmodern perhaps.) Still after the era of branding I do not see the obvious reason why we are doing the branding stuff. But the customer in general are longing for it. But what do we mean when we are talking about brands? The original meaning is that has to do with communication of values that is connected to making money. I have no problem with that. The problem occurs when we use it on every thing that we do and that is what society is doing today. Branding has become the overall definition of everyday life. You brand even yourself. What is left?  You sell everything that you have? Even your grandmother or? Another way of seeing it is that branding represent the relation between them and us. Branding has become the bridge that we use to define us in relation to others. In that sense branding is like a shelter that we can hide ourselves behind. It is perhaps not so much about showing who you are anymore? Instead it has become part of our language that we can use for different purposes. Or perhaps even that is not relevant anymore. In an interview with a chic Chinese girl in a weekend magazine in Shanghai she was saying that she believed more in faith or random destiny how come she bought a brand instead of being very strategic about her selection. Follow your intuition she said and do not look so much for the brand. With that type of shopping behavior I will be scared if you want to draw a branding strategy. But it sounds very healthy. But if you ask a Chinese who just has moved to Shanghai to make a living that would not be the case. For many of the branding is the key to rich heaven. Branding is the thing where you put your feet when you want to climb the status latter in society.  In the end we are all in different need of branding. Sometimes you see something that reminds you that there is something that is not branding. But it is of course an illusion. Jasper Morrison doorbell reminds you of it – just plain design.

The image shows parts of my mobile phone life. Each of them connected me and was items that I was engaged with in different ways. When I now look at them it reminds how technology and design has changed.

But still I have my favourites. Nokia 6210 for example. If they produced it today with latest technology I would probably consider buying it. How come? The feeling comes to me when I pick it up, how it fits my hand and fingers, when I press the buttons or turn it on. It still feels quality and the design is thought of in all parts. Compared with IPhone this phone tells you that our daily interaction with touch has changed. 6210 was made for one hand. The iPhone I mostly use with two hands. This has of course to do with that we less and less use the phone as a talk phone. Instead we use it as a computer. Following the trends the way we communicate will lead to that mobile phone life is coming to its end. In my ears it sounds that we are entering more into less direct interaction and instead enters a communication society of delayed interaction. 6210 was the promise of direct interaction. IPhone is the fact of delayed interaction with the rest of the world. But everyone seems to love it. You can hide yourself. The phone becomes your filter to rest of the world. It becomes both your information weapon and your handicap tool.  In the beginning it was the phone that became mobile and that made us more mobile. Today the phone makes us less mobile in the sense that we can do everything more or less from the same spot and that I can plan things much more than before. Today I know exactly where too go to with the help of my apps. This is the end as Doors puts it  - happy or not -that is the question.

Fashion loves you and it also makes you hate it. On the one hand the destructiveness of the endless mass production and on the other hand the desire for the creative genius that keeps the illusion alive and that gives us hope for something that is a theatre.

Are we now witnessing, as pointed out in article in Financial Times about the story of Galliano, that the belief in the genius is gone, that we now are entering hard core business without any excesses? Perhaps, perhaps not. Going to Prime Mark in London you will believe it is gone. As my 12 year daughter put it when we there; ”this is what I call shopping”.  Raw Fashion Capitalism might it be called. But at the same day entering a exhibition curated by Judith Clark at Fashion Space Gallery hosted at London College of Fashion gives you hope of something that fashion is something more than just shopping or Galliano.  The exhibition, Judgement of Paris tells you a story from Greek mythology about how Paris, the model of beauty had to choose at a banquet hold by Zeus which one of the three goodness Hera, Athena and Aphrodite was the fairest one. The goodness’s tried to convince Paris in different ways. Paris gave the apple to Aphrodite who offered him the love of the worlds most beautiful woman; Helen of Sparta. Paris Judgement of beauty instead of power, wisdom or skill do not only tells a story about Paris but about the power of beauty.

Fashion is of course about beauty. If it where not then we would not then have fashion. The problem arises when it are put in hands of people in power in which ethical codes are lost completely. Perhaps this is what has happened in Paris. But if the fashion world becomes more like a predictable marketing campaign we will also get lost. Because that has nothing to do with beauty in its deep artistic sense. But the fashion world has also seem have difficulties to deal with the sustainable questions which has created alternatives. Pantstopoverty.com is one, neighbourhoodies is another example that tries to find alternative ways of dealing with fashion.

The driving force is to find new ways how we look upon fashion and how we consume. Shopping is serious business, its not about spending money – its about what we think about ourselves and others and what we want our society to be in the future.

The event is in itself is social. Now design itself is becoming more social. But what do we mean with social? I have picked two aspects of it. One that relates to our need of being social. The other play on the ethical dimension of design.  Social design has been going on for a while now. It is a reaction towards global mass production and the ecological problems we are facing. How can design make us more social and help us find new ways to solve problems. For example how can my neighbourhood be a resource for my needs? What will happen if we share things collectively rather than just buying it to our own homes. This way of asking questions will make us look upon design in a different way.

You can of course find all different kinds of projects and products during the Milan design week. Three-dimensional products are still mostly what is all about.

Food design is an area that has got an attention lately. Midnight dinners by Arabeeschi di Latte with Annette Weber I found interesting. Their project Underkitchen tries “to reveal the hidden, subtle and abstract nature behind food and hospitality”. They not only want to blur the boundaries between food and design but also “to create an open platform for food-related collaborations.” One thing that strikes me is the way they want us to open our minds what we not only mean by food and design but also how we relate to food in itself. I am not sure that it triggers my appetite but that is perhaps not the crucial thing here. Instead it is more like an experiment. But the project reflects also our contacts or longing with getting in Asia, especially china.  This is best shown in Hermes collection. The goal is of course the new wealth in China.

Who does not want this device?  How often do we not have that feeling of looking for a way out? On my latest trip to London I found this piece in gallery in east end. The person behind is Andrew Friend, graduated from RCA 2010 in design interaction.  On his webpage http://www.andrewfriend.co.uk you can read that his ” work is focussed on designing experiences between people, technologies and their surroundings. He is interested in the extraordinary, fantastic and desirable (or indeed undesirable) experiences and outcomes that may result from these interactions.”

I really like this. It is real  and not real at the same time..