Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

Contemporary debates about originality in postmodernism and postmodernism itself are core topics of any artist or creative person living today. This essay will attempt to explain postmodernism from a historical perspective and outline it's major ideas and values. This is achieved by tracing its modernist and historical roots and influences. Separately the idea of originality itself is looked at from a philosophic, ethic and legal perspective to enable us to understand both terms in the context of furniture design in the post modern era..

This essay will further explore the trends in postmodern furniture its influences with the aspect of separating this product into different categories in accordance to the source of its originality. A few brief examples of postmodern furniture will be presented as a representation of different approaches to originality.

Overall this essay will argue that originality as perceived by contemporary artists, myself included borrows heavily from postmodernist discourse. The deconstruction of the myth of traditional originality is the bare bone of postmodernism. While originality as a pure concept dissolves within the postmodern object, originality as an experience or expression thrives in the postmodern.

WHAT IS MODERNISM

To understand postmodernism we have to first define modernism. Modernity has been linked with the Enlightenment and a scientific approach. “Modernism failed to take into account the fact that the humanist aspiration of rationality, order and cooperation are not inherent in culture but learnt” (Crouch 1999). . The pinnacle of human reason then, becomes the philosophy of it’s time, and all forms of irrationality and spirituality have been labelled as dangerous and attacked. In Modernism science, technology and politics dominate to create wealth. The rejection of the direct link between man and nature, mind and body in Modernism, of its rational and analytic conceptual framework, was taken apart and replaced by Postmodernist’s ideas of relativity and perception. “Modernism has collapsed into confusion, that the idea of a unified, transparent and understandable rational culture has been proven to be an idealistic myth”(Crouch 1999)

WHAT IS POSTMODERNISM

Naturally, postmodernism has rejected the modern idea of originality and the idea of new, and replaced it with a concept of references and links. The approach to finding something new and original was discarded and substituted with combinations of elements from past and existing cultures. Tearing down borders between styles and various cultural elements was its characteristic.

Postmodernity derives the tension implied by globalization of society and the unavoidable intersect of the local with global. Postmodernism sees different angles of perception, as it refuses to use the rational and objective view of modernity. It also rejects the rational measurement of values applied by modernism. It seems impossible to explain postmodernism from within, as all the tools for such tasks postmodernism has removed.One would have to step out of this historical (or rather contemporary) period. “ There is no longer a transcendent space from which to offer a critique of this culture” (Rice & Waugh 1996)

Postmodernism has alienated the subject, to announce the death of individualism. Even more radical positions of poststructuralism even drought the existence of individual subject in the first place. This was an attempt to make the notion of time and history insignificant. It leads to the recycling of objects from the past to create a real, more personal experience. “There is too much information for us to process and make sense of and we are trapped in a world of second-hand experiences, dependent upon media representation of the world rather than our first-hand experience.”(Crouch 1999)

. As in postmodernism it is hard to specify the real purpose in life only experience and pleasure could create the notion of new, this is to apply the preceptor new experience rather than creating a new object. “In a world in which stylistic innovation is no longer possible, all that is left is to imitate dead styles, to speak through the mask and with the voices of the styles in the imaginary museum. But this means that contemporary or postmodernist art is going to be about art itself in a new kind of way, even more, it means that one of its essential messages will involve the necessary failure of art and the aesthetic, the failure of the new, the imprisonment in the past”(Foster 1985) This leads us to become the part of the art and a participator of creating its own individual experience unrepeatable in time. “We have to fight against the way in which people are turned into an audience, into spectators, by working continually to restore them into proper place, as actors.” (Philippi 2003)

The end of Modernity has been announced many times, “Ideologically we now live in a postmodern society”(Crouch 1999) but in my opinion today's society is still acting heavily influenced by modernity in our every day life. Capitalism can be seen as a major incentive for such behaviour, as it is system built upon modernity which is essential for its function. “Postmodernism has presented the erosion of the older distinction between high culture and so-called mass or popular culture”(Foster 1985)

If we substitute the original with information, we might be able to see the postmodern information era, when the role of the media is not to inform, but to provide entertaining experience and emotion. Such media products can also contain information, but the selection, context and distortion is transforming it into continuous emotional and endless stream of amusement, disturbance and comfort. It might seem like the most of the effort by media is to maintain their virtual production of entertaining services, rather than provide information, and the “originality” of it become the drive for neophiliatic experience.

WHAT IS ORIGINALITY

Originality is visualised as a certain value of being original, unique, new. As Clement Greenberg put it: "All profound original art looks ugly at first." It indicates how deep our links are with previous originals and recent derivates. The real new has no precursor, in the sense that it is hard to absorb and understand as there is no historical unconscious background to source from. “Postmodernism had shown that there is nothing for consciousness to be anchored to, no universal ground of truth, justice or reason, so that consciousness itself is decentred, no longer origin, author, location of intentional agency but function through which impersonal forces pass and intersect” (Rice & Waugh 1996)

It was not the value and the function in which the object communicates with audience, but its hidden references and codes from the past which allowed a more individual perception. As a communication with the preceptor/customer is a key aspect to art/design, the way and intensity in which it can capture the audience is essential. There was only so much modernity can provide as and exiting options with its efficiency and straight forward analysis. The originality and authenticity of the prime source no longer remains to be important in postmodernism, but it was the recycled message built upon the unconscious memories and perceptions from the past which gave power to new perspective and new perception of originality. Sometimes the provoking combination of obviously non-referring styles joined together created new “original”, yet assembled together from well recognised originals of the past. Conversely the postmodernist concept of deconstruction exploits the intercommunication in between the influences and endless process of referring.

This issue of originality is closely related to copyrights. From a legal perspective the definition of originality is reduced to a 10% variation in design that is required for an object not to be subject to a patent protection. On the one hand copyright law can protect the rights of creators, on the other hand copyrights also serve to protect the profits of corporations such as Disney, that use original characters to create endless derivates. We live in the age of copy boom, where technology has left law far behind. In electronic media, there is no original master anymore, all product are identical, all originals as the same time as copies. The only difference could be seen from ethical and law perspective, not from the product itself.

We might see the originality to be connected not only with the final product, but more with the brand and style itself. This can be demonstrated as example when Japanese imitation of Harley motorcycle apparently can not provide the experience of freedom persuaded by the real Harley-Davidson. As if the levels and quality of the freedom itself could vary and be purchased, rather than enabling exposure to our true barriers freedom, in recognition that motorcycle is an “escape” tool from the reality we don't like. Harley then becomes a part of the problem, rather than solution, firstly disabling us by suggesting our freedom is “away”, and then offering itself as solution to enable us by offering their product to get away. “The only way forward for the productive system is through dematerialization” .(Philippi 2003). Therefore Harley is certainly original, at least in its marketing strategy to brand freedom, unlike its followers, but both only produce a kind of idea/dream machines, with capabilities to transport, not the solution to the problem. “Human nature is contradictory. It offers the possibility of operating according to varying logic and differing aspirations. This is its richness.” (Manzini 2005)

Given the ever repeating items of furniture for the last century, it is possible to find many items very similar rather than some really original ideas applied. It is tempting to announce a postmodernist slogan: “the end of design” since all the possible original solutions for example chairs, has already been build. But by applying this problem to a different media, like music, we might see the never ending opportunity for new designs, and only few of them would draw from existing items and traditions.

As I think it is impossible to determine what is original and what not without being individual, I can only present my personal view on this problem. In my opinion design in general has been influenced by technology more than anything else, and we have not seen many truly original ideas, with exception of electronics. An automobile for example is using the same principles of four wheels, combustion engine for last hundred years! In my opinion and original design and furniture in that matter, have to come with honestly new implemented idea, technology but mainly a new concept.

I would distinguish originality in furniture into two peer groups. First one is an original application of new technologies, as well as new materials. This would include the commercial application of technologies of plywood, wood lamination, foam and plastic. As a technology shift I see the invention of board material such is medium density fibreboard or plywood, which truly changed the way we see, design, and use furniture. This sheet material allowed us to produce cheap and uniform furniture as the limits are given by its beneficiary – the standardisations. We may call it then: “the end of truly original furniture” when each item was dependent upon non-standard material and therefore had to bee created to some extended individually. “The supposed functionalism of Modernist stylistic design was an illusion, and second, that technology alone was only half the design equation. Both style and technology have to be brought together in a social context” (Crouch 1999)

Those new technologies allowed of creation of new “original” design in a sense of new material used. A steam bending technology applied to traditional material – timber, is a modernist Michael Thonet's steam bend chairs, which design survived a century. Interestingly, this technology is considered to be original again as it comes back re-discovered or re-invented using similar, but hi-tech processes. I believe that this existing link of such successful design allows the rise of these “new” production techniques to accomplish. “Social contextualisation of design through historical reference can enable an increasing functionality” (Crouch 1999)

The second group of originality in my view is a core re-development of the object and transformation its function into service provided by an object. It requires deep search and questioning of the purpose and role of the objects and the influences of preconceived ideas represented thought tradition, culture and history. “I always mention the example of a client who asked for a boat, and he was very happy with the advice of his designer, who suggested he try swimming and in this way let him to rediscover the pleasures of swimming” .(Philippi 2003).

Examples of typical postmodern furniture to some extent become less important than the philosophy or approach behind the piece. The originality of a piece comes from its experience, and from its blend of former originals. “Postmodernist design is noticeable by its mixture of styles, the ideology of postmodern design in one of decoration and variety”(Crouch 1999) As a one example for all, redesigned Thonet chair by Alessandro Mendini.

In conclusion, during my research I have come to discover, that no other but postmodernist answer to this problem is relevant, as this essay is written in contemporary society of today. With such a position I have to acknowledge the postmodern experience of perception originality as the most original not the items of art or design itself, but the experiences and individual perceptions which they create, truly original and unique. Therefore yes, while originality does exist, the medium in which we used to find it has changed with postmodernism.

Dormer, P 1993, Design since 1945, Thames and Hudson, London.

Foster, HE 1985, Postmodern culture, Pluto Press.

Manzini, E 2005, 'Enabling solutions, social innovation and design for sustainability',

Philippi, S 2003, Starck, Taschen, Ko\0308ln ; London.

Rice, P & Waugh, P 1996, Modern literary theory : a reader, 3rd ed. edn, Arnold, London.