Fjorten

Symposia in reflection of given text: Applied Art Between Nostalgia and Innovation By Kristian Berg Nielsen.
Notebook Assignment: 1. Explain the debate between John Ruskin and futurist Marinetti.Which one can you related to and why? 2. Do Danish designers employ futurism in their design for solving everyday problems?

1. John Ruskin and Marinetti represent to extreme points of view one either end of the craftsmanship vs mass production debate. As the father of the Arts and Crafts Movement Ruskin takes a firm stand against technology and mass production. During the arts and crafts movement technology wasn't as extremely adverse so the movement as it seems today. While technology has always been present since innovations such as the first wheel, technology today is a different ball game. Our every surface is touched by technology...the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the way we lecture in classrooms and the way we communicate. This blog for example is a graphic digital submission to replace the traditional journal.

Marinetti states that future is more interesting then past...that with technology we can change the way we live in this world, for the better. He sees technology as resource to surpass what those have done before us. Today's technology allows for the speed of change to be rapid and often. While this can be a progressive important part of the way our society functions, some feel that we're going too fast. Marinetti would argue that any sentimental value given to craftsmanship is a romanticist idea and a load of jargon. Marinetti is more of the power type, that sees technology as a way from man to dominate. The operatically for a new renaissance. 

Ruskin would side with those who think that technology has enabled us to move too fast into the future, often causing us to forget the past. We've stated in class many times that history repeats itself, generally and also in design and innovation. Thussen suggested that nothing new can be done, that what can be created has already been created, and anything to be done in the future is only a throwback to past innovations. Ruskin argues that if we neglect craftsmanship as an art form we will lose an important connection with what we create. He would support the idea that a craft or piece of art made by hand holds within it a special aura that not only draws the person to it, but touches the person soul. A connection between the creator and the beholder. This connection of creator to beholder is similar to the biblical reference of people being made it God's image...the idea that when you have a piece of craft you somehow see yourself in it...or have the opportunity to connect with the creator. Through the work they have done you've connected at some emotional level. With mass production and use of technology all intimacy is lost. Ruskin sees this as a shame, while Marinetti an opportunity.

I suppose I could consider myself a romanticist. I think that there's a lot of beauty in hand crafted work. While a machine can punch out 300 chairs an hour I am more impressed by the capabilities of my fellow humankind. I am astounded by the talents of many craftsman... I adore things that are made specifically for me. As I stated in class my best friends dad is a glass blower. He has crafted me several pieces of jewelry that are one of a kind and irreplaceable. I think that machinery and technology take the special out of anything. If everyone else has it, what does it say about me? Not very much. Though I understand that technology is a very important part of our society and how we live today, and more so how we will continue to live in the future I am on team Ruskin. I am more so impressed by the creativity of the human hand and eye then that of the computer. It could be interesting to debate that the creator of the computer is a craftsman as well...however that argument is neither here nor there. Why we feel the need to decide one one team or the other I'm not sure. Perhaps because technology strips craftsman of their pride and replaces their talents with a computer, the two cannot meet in the middle. I think both will continue to survive in the future and hopefully some day we will be able to reach a harmonious compromise.

I have greater longing to possess what can't be replaced. What does that say about me?

2. Most Danish designers employ futurism in their design when working on solving everyday problems while also paying a large amount of respect to the founders of Danish design. The Danish value their past as much as they value their future. Danish designers often try to improve upon the past while paying homage to past designers. As mentioned in an earlier blog Phillipe Stark paid obviously homage to the classic Louis XV armchair for Kartell with his creation the Louis Ghost Armchair (2002), said to be a "Postmodern triumph of technical innovation and historical style." While re-creating a classic piece of furniture he reinvented it using technology and modern materials. Most Danish designers design under this school of thought.

The part of Marinetti's futurism that Danish designers employ is the idea that with innovation we can push the envelope and discover human potential in the future. This idea that we're not finished accomplishing as the human race. At the same time Danish designers would agree with Ruskin's dedication to craftsmanship and art, as most Danish designers are themselves trained craftsman. I mentioned earlier that perhaps someday we will find a compromise between Ruskin's field of thought and that of Marinetti. I think of all people Danish designers are on their way to finding a happy medium.