Despite all the sustainable design arguments that favour repetition, endurance, and longevity–not all things, actions, or relationships become better or remain valuable and nourishing when repeated or with time.
A sustainable life involves repetitions and endurance, but it also involves letting go of actions, relationships, and objects that are not — or that are no longer — beneficial, encouraging, constructive, or worth sustaining in relation to one’s life’s journey.
Cultivating an understanding of the difference between edifying and wearying repetitions is crucial when trying to live sustainable.
Why is “the daily grind,” for example, typically viewed as mortifying–whereas cooking, gardening, dancing, practicing yoga, or leisure walking isn’t? All those activities are defined by repetition, the same way “the daily grind” is.
Why are some objects continuously pleasurable to be surrounded by and to use, whereas others quickly decline and appear insignificant or even obsolete?
Why are some human relationships uplifting and some exhausting?
Nourishing repetitions are linked with deeply felt passion and engagement, so, if you are not passionate about your daily chores, or if you have invested in things solely due to their fleeting trend value — out of a need to feel acknowledged — or if you don’t have a free, acknowledgment- and dialogue-based relationship to the people around you, you will not feel fulfilled by repeated usage or interaction.
On the contrary, you will feel drained.
Asin nature, resilience involves flexibility, and in order to be flexible and adjustable, one must be able to embrace change and let go of or pass on the things that no longer serve a purpose in one’s life.
When that time occurs, the objects that one is “done” with — perhaps due to a change in one’s situation — are preferably either so durable — functionality wise as well as aesthetically — that they are desirable to others and can then be considered vintage, or they are made of bio-degradable materials and have a naturally short lifecycle (which I wrote about here).
But, what does it require from a design-object to be durable, and thus be perceived as unceasingly intriguing: having the aesthetic qualities worthy to be passed on even after it no longer serves a purpose in the initial owner’s life?
I have previously written about the importance of openness, flexibility, intended imperfections, and impermanence, but repetition is also naturally vital. It is of great importance that the user of the object wants to repeatedly use it and grows more and more fond of it. Otherwise, it is typically quickly discarded and replaced, which is obviously a highly unsustainable behavioural pattern.
Inorder for the design-object to contain the possibility of establishing a bond based on repetition, it must be accessible in the sense that its starting point, or the designer’s initial inspiration that has ignited the design process, must be transformed from something personal to something that is open and inclusive to others.
This could manifest in a transformation from a designer’s nourishing experience of walking through the rooms of her or his home due to the shifting flooring — which is a very personal experience linked to a specific place — to the implementation of the edifying and grounding aesthetic experience of variated tactile stimuli, which is open to others than the creator.
The open design-object invites the user to engage and interact, and to “finish” it by including the visible traces of usage and the invisible traces of stories and emotions.
However, perhaps another important element of the answer to the above raised question on why some repetitions are nourishing and experienced as beautiful, whereas others feel wearisome and trivial, is to be found Kierkegaard’s philosophy.
Cooking or walking, for example, are only experienced as uplifting when done attentively — when one takes the time to appreciate the act in itself and doesn’t view it as a part of the daily grind.
In a busy everyday life, cooking dinner for one’s family typically feels overwhelming and stressful, and consequently is something that just needs to be done, whereas cooking a meal for guests on the weekend while drinking a glass of wine and listening to a podcast is an entirely different experience.
Going for a walk to clear one’s mind and enjoy a location in town or the serenity of a forest or a beach feels enriching, whereas walking quickly in order to get somewhere in time or walking while pondering a problem — without noticing one’s surroundings — might increase one’s stress level rather than bring relief.
Why?
Kierkegaard would say that even though embracing repetitions is an important part of inviting more fulfilling heaviness into one’s life, the reason for the difference between the above-described cooking and walking-experiences is that our mindset is actually more important than the act of repetition in itself. We must will and choose our lives; embrace our daily doings and rituals.
Doing so is most certainly easier if what we fill our days with is experienced as meaningful and passion driven. Why not make everyday cooking as special as the weekend cooking session? What would it take to do so? Perhaps a few changes in the way we approach our chores would make the difference, or perhaps the question could ignite more significant life changes.
The most important takeaway from Kierkegaard’s philosophy is to understand that we are 100% in charge of our lives; we shape our reality, are responsible for the choices we make, and for the degree of satisfaction that they bring us.
As a part hereof, we are also responsible for investing in objects that nourish and encourage the satisfying repetitions in life. It is definitely more rewarding to cook if the cooking utensils are aesthetically nourishing — due to their materials, colours, and/or shape — and well-functioning and flexible, rather than if they are insignificant or perhaps even disagreeable and impractical to use.
Limiting what we own to a few well-functioning, aesthetically nourishing, resilient, tactilely stimulating, auratic items could be a first step toward more nourishing, delightfully heavy daily repetitions.
Inthe essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” German philosopher Walter Benjamin introduces the term aura and discusses an aura-loss linked to modern reproduction techniques.
The aura-loss associated with reproducibility is a loss of what Benjamin calls cultic aura. This type of aura is connected and subject to the authenticity and uniqueness of an artwork. A reproduced artwork can never be authentic, since it isn’t original.
However, and importantly, Benjamin doesn’t view the loss of aura negatively. The loss of cultic aura doesn’t mean that auratic experiences are not possible in relation to modern artwork. In relation to reproducibility, we are just dealing with a different type of aura — a profane aura. A profane aura is not dependent on originality or uniqueness. It is democratic in the sense that it is unpretentious and inclusive, since it involves an opening of the artwork; an opening that techniques of reproduction make accessible to the masses and not just the limited few that can afford an expensive auratic art experience. The profane aura’s inclusiveness is dependent on its ability to release the artwork from traditions and bring it into the distinct situation of the viewer or recipient.
Benjamin’s thoughts on profane aura can advantageously be transferred to the sustainable design object. The anti-trendy, open design-object is not necessarily a “niche” or unique artefact that is auratic due to its exclusivity. And, even if we are dealing with handcrafted, unique design pieces, the sustainable design-object is meant to be used, and hence to be worldly or profane in order to support and beautify the life of the user.
The anti-trendy, open design-object is furthermore meant to be experienced as inclusive by a broad audience. It is non-elitist and accessible.
Sustainable design solutions and objects should not be created for the limited few that have the money to live organically, sustainably, politically correct, and “green” (which I also discuss here). In order to make a real difference, the sustainable designer — and maybe even more importantly, any company that aspires to be sustainable and environmentally friendly — must aim for creating sustainable design solutions for the masses. Whether this is to be done by creating sharable objects, or short-lived, biodegradable articles, or by initiating societal consensus on radically reducing consumption all together and buying only a few but very resilient things, sustainable design should be accessible to common people, to the crowds, and not just to the financially privileged.
The anti-trendy aesthetic experience is a profane aura experience. And sustainable design should be democratic.
…
Let’s connect! https://www.instagram.com/the_immaterialist/
—
This post was previously published on medium.com.
***
All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS. Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here.
Compliments Men Want to Hear More Often | Relationships Aren’t Easy, But They’re Worth It | The One Thing Men Want More Than Sex | ..A Man’s Kiss Tells You Everything |
—–
Photo credit: Jocelyn Morales on Unsplash