CAVA 102 - 103 | OBJECT DESIGN WORKSHOP

EMMA:

I believe that our biggest strength in this project was our research into making processes to be able to find one that worked within our time frame. Alongside this, I believe my personal weakness was at first being able to come up with a cohesive and strong idea to support what we were doing.

We found a tutorial for the acrylic gel transfer process online and were then able to use our time effectively to allow drying, setting and dissolving time. This process made the objects more complex than cut-and-paste. They also had a more refined, glossier finish- one that was also waterproof. If allowed more time, we could have involved much more complex plastic and printmaking processes.

Before beginning this design project I had a good understanding of what cultural appropriation was defined as. The research element involved allowed me to gain a better understanding of the concept and therefore, a better understanding of what message we should try to convey in our design. By focusing on the cheap, meaninglessness of the mundane boomerang from salvos, I could recreate this in reference to other cultures.

In terms of making processes, the main lesson for me was the acrylic gel transfer as I did not know that an acrylic medium could hold ink and dissolve paper the way this one had. In terms of thinking processes, I learnt to separate characteristics of objects and then recreate/reflect them in other, entirely different objects.

LIZZY:

This task was definitely more challenging than I was expecting but I really enjoyed it. I loved the creative process of making something that functions, something that I have probably never done since I was in primary school.

We didn’t have too much trouble deciding on the boomerang as our mundane object (although I was impartial to the vintage badminton rackets ☺) and that we would focus on the commercial appropriation of culture as our aspect to create something from; however, nailing down how we would use this feature to create another object was really challenging. Once we had decided on our idea though, it was smooth sailing!

I think the concept of demonstrating the lack of cultural significance when used in conjunction with cheap, mass-produced items was quite effective, but it would have been great if we had pushed our idea a bit further so that our tableware could actually be used, or the item had been more striking to make a greater impression, for example.

I had never used acrylic gel as an image transfer before so it was great experimenting with this medium in a new context. This process will definitely be useful again.

PIERRE CHARPIN

55-year-old Pierre Charpin is a French furniture and object designer, currently working in Ivry-sur-Seine on the outskirts of Paris. Charpin has exhibited his creations all over the world, including Paris, Switzerland, London, Milan and Kyoto, and has collaborated with a variety of high end manufacturers including Hermes, Alessi and The Wrong Shop. This year he was named Maison&Objet’s Designer of the Year, with the French design fair and online platform describing his style, “Pierre Charpin keeps his eye for plastic arts and stamps his unique style on every piece he designs – formal simplicity, softened by curved lines and often highlighted by distinctive chromatic choices” (2017).

Despite his accomplishments, Charpin’s work resonated especially with us because of how he incorporates art into his designs and his unique interpretations of mundane objects. Rather than redesigning objects utilising an element of a mundane object in his work, Charpin focuses on adapting and reinventing common objects, such as lamps and couches, to fit into our current society and technological landscape. At first glance, Charpin’s ‘PC Task Lamp’ (2016) is just a mundane, but aesthetically pleasing desk lamp; however, the lamp addresses energy consumption and accessibility, making it more useful for our present society. The lamp is controlled by touch, able to be switch on and dimmed without knobs and buttons. ‘PC Lamp’ also turns itself off after six hours, working to combat our overwhelming global energy consumption by noting soothing as simple but critical as turning of the lights. It can be seen from this that there are multiple layers behind Charpin’s approach to designing mundane objects.

While creating a series of paintings of the Japanese landscape in residency at Kyoto’s Villa Kujoyama, Charpin observed the object’s personalities, “Some seemed sympathetic, or more aggressive, or thoughtful, or questioning, some joyful or rather sad. They were all features of their singularity, so remarkably similar to ourselves” (The Wrong Shop, 2016). I really like this approach of personifying the object as it instills the object with a personality and sense of life without literally giving them human features. He also noted the importance of scale and aesthetic in his creative process, stating, “I prefer to reinvent the existing by renewing the proportions or the agreements. The object interests me only if it has a presence... It matters to me that it lives in space” (Côté Maison 2017). An example of this notion of a mundane object having personality is demonstrated in Charpin’s ‘Slice’ chair (1998, reproduced 2016), which offers numerous possibilities on how to live more vibrantly, “If there is no doubt at all that Slice is a seat, it is also an object, the intention of which is to invite us to live with color. An invitation to bask in it, perhaps even to lose oneself in it” (Ligne Roset 2017).

Charpin stated that his practice is “largely based on experimental projects” (Charpin 2017), with Maison&Objet describing him as an “explorer at heart” (2017). Another aspect that Charpin noted in his approach to object design is that he has a keen interest in the manufacturing process and how this impacted on how the objects were designed (Maison&Objet 2017).

Something I find interesting about Charpin’s style is that he does not make a distinction between his work for industry and his work for galleries (Côté Maison 2017). In my head, this is a fundamental difference; naturally, commissioned designs have an entirely different feel to those created for personal use. However, Charpin has led me to question why I believe this, because although often working to a brief, naturally designers apply their style to whatever they are creating, which is why I am unsure why I held this as the case.

Therefore, Charpin’s work approaches mundane objects from a variety of angles and motives: to integrate the object into the current technoscape, to provide the object with personality and to use experimental, innovative techniques to achieve this.

Charpin, P 2017, Biography, viewed 1 October 2017, <https://www.pierrecharpin.com/>.

Charpin, P 2016, Pierre Charpin on Monkey Drawings, The Wrong Shop, 5 April, viewed 2 October, <https://www.thewrongshop.co.uk/blog/interviews-and-writing/pierre-charpin-monkey-drawings/>.

Hay 2016, PC, viewed 2 October 2017, <http://hay.dk/globalassets/media/brandsite/contract/ product-sheets/pdfer/hay-pc-product-fact-sheet.pdf>.

Ligne Roset 2017, SLICE: Pierre Charpin, viewed 3 October 2017, <https://www.ligne-roset.com/us/modele/living/armchairs/slice/2353>.

Maison&Objet 2017, Pierre Charpin: M&O PARIS designer of the year, January 2017, online video, viewed 3 October 2017, <http://www.maison-objet.com/en/paris/program/awards/designers-of-the-year/pierre-charpin>.

Morby, A 2016, ‘Pierre Charpin named Maison&Objet Designer of the Year’, Dezeen, 7 December, viewed 2 October 2017, <https://www.dezeen.com/2016/12/07/pierre-charpin-named-maison-objet-designer-year-news/>.

Marcel Wanders, ‘Circus’ Collection

I am interested in this series of design because of its functionality, originality and consistency. Each object is beautifully finished and serves a purpose. The set mirrors the cultural symbols and aesthetic elements of the circus, but makes them its own. Finally, each piece fits in with the rest to create a balance- through the use of colour repetition, minimalism and shapes.

Trelise Cooper, Indian Headdress

I am interested in Cooper’s design piece as it reflects what we were trying to achieve in our own work- that something can be aesthetically beautiful yet still highly cultural offensive. The symbolism behind a Native American headdress means that its recreation and redesign is not viewed as appreciation, and is instead viewed as stealing.

Dunne and Raby, Huggable Atomic Mushroom

Our original mundane object is a $5 boomerang we found at Salvos, pictured below.

Boomerangs, historically, are objects of work and leisure within the Indigenous Australian culture. A boomerang is a tool that when thrown, is designed to spin about an axis perpendicular to the direction of its flight. A ‘returning boomerang’ is designed to return to the thrower. Other boomerangs were designed not to return, and instead were used for hunting. Depictions of boomerangs being thrown at animals, such as kangaroos, have appeared in some of the oldest Indigenous Australian rock art in the world in the Kimberly region, which is potentially up to 50,000 years old. Other traditional uses for the boomerang include music and sport.

Boomerangs have been found also in ancient Europe, Egypt, and North America. One boomerang that was discovered in in the Carpathian Mountains in Poland was made of mammoth's tusk and is believed to be about 30,000 years old. In the Netherlands, boomerangs have been found in Vlaardingen and Velsen from the first century BC.

The modern boomerang is often computer-aided designed with precision airfoils (aerodynamic wings). The number of "wings" is often more than 2 as more lift is provided by 3 or 4 wings. (below)

Currently, they are still seen as a symbol of Indigenous Australian culture and are thus mass produced from soft wood as souvenirs. These do not function as boomerangs. With European settlement in Australia, they became items for collection and display. “Walking sticks and umbrellas have gone out of fashion; and even in this rainy season no man carries anything but a boomerang.” stated Dublin University Magazine in 1838. Later in the 19th century, boomerangs became souvenirs for the transport and tourist market. Boomerangs were featured in Australia’s 2000 Olympic logo. (below)

Boomerangs would often be hand-painted with traditional dot patterns. This was a style of art that originated amongst certain Aboriginal regions and became more widespread across Australia in time. The style was designed to be abstract, so that sacred stories could be told through the images without Europeans being able to translate them. In souvenirs, the painstaking effort of dot painting is removed as the designs are simply printed onto the surface.

In 2017, Chanel was widely criticised for marketing a $2,000 boomerang printed with the brand’s iconic logo. Many people viewed this as appropriation and capitalization of sacred Indigenous culture, despite boomerangs being a cheap tourist souvenir for many years already. The mass production of the boomerang as a tourist item is an early example of cultural appropriation and how the symbolism of an object can change over time based on its purpose.