The purpose of this paper is to explore the functionality of
everyday objects, the further use that should be available and the sociological
effects that come into play against consumers because of this. The paper will
also explore the everyday functionality of an object covering over the design
and aesthetic within material culture, the consumer of the object and how the
object becomes waste when the consumer deems the object useless to them. While
covering the pros and cons that methods of reducing waste have and how waste
affects society as a whole. Also covering what can be done to preserve the
world through recycling discussing both short and long term solutions.
1:
Material culture and the relations it has with technological
society and the effect it plays against everyday design. This is explored
further by Paul Caffrey, Material Culture and the Object,(Circa, No. 103
(Spring, 2003), p. 28), Everyday are not regarded as being worth kept, but if
we were able to redesign this we would be able to better society by recycling
these objects. Objects after time are usual no longer regarded as being
beautiful or are seen as being obsolete. The more society becomes conscious of
what is in and what isn’t the higher amount of waste is produced. We need to
change this creating more functions that appeal to the consumer without
destroying the fragile ideal of something newer and better.
Using the emotional connection between the user and the
everyday objects can allow for a want of further use and function.
Peter-PaulVerbeek, reviewed by David
M. Kaplan “What Things Still Don't Do”, (Vol. 32, No. 2 (Jun.,
2009), pp. 233-234), discusses the idea of allowing humans to gain attachment
with their everyday items, therefore reducing waste. This is able to be done by
designing ‘“engaging products” which involve humans in their functionings,’
this is not only by aesthetic and ecological significance, but he looks into
the idea of moral involvement. This shows the sociological understanding
between the consumer and the designer.
2:
Is there a relationship between capitalist society and their
function? In “Massive Change: The Future of Global Design” it discussed the
idea of having a more Capitalist slant within society and this allows it to
further promote the paradigm that would allow the creation of infinitely
reusable products making such things as landfills a thing of the past. Both of
my sources agree with a more capitalist society within the consumer and
emphasize my argument of further function. This shows the concept of moral
values within sociological views on how society can change or could be better
off.
3:
What effects does the relationship between the sociological
view on design aesthetics and craft production play against functionality?
Within the text “Design, Poverty, and Sustainable Development”, by Angharad
Thomas, (Design Issues, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Autumn, 2006), pp. 54-65), It looks at
how craft production is a critical link to industrialized manufacturing. It
argues that it is a sustainable means of production take a higher role
therefore increasing waste as these items are usually non-essential items such
as ornamental or that are easily dispensable. They only look at what will sell
and not how it will affect the environment and the sociological moral output,
i.e. “To be able to compete, a good design input? Ensuring that goods are
produced in colors that will sell, or of appropriate sizes? Is very important.”
4:
What would happen if society were to use biodegradable
products over non-degradable material and the effects that it would play within
society? Tsjalling Swierstra and Jaap Jelsma, Science, (Technology, & Human
Values, Vol. 31, No. 3, Ethics and Engineering Design(May, 2006), pp. 309-332),
looks at the using biodegradable materials reducing the amount of waste
produced and the remainder that is unable to be processed could be used as
biomass. According to authors this is only possible in a world where we have
the exhaustion of materials, prices of these biodegradable synthetics has
fallen to scale of production, this allows it to alleviate the processing of
organic waste. This would allow society to have a better bond between the
sociological and the everyday items that we use have a better use.
Can craft be used to help alleviate the amount of waste
produced by the consumer by creating further function within art or decoration?
Beyond the Egg Carton Alligator: To Recycle Is to Recall and Restore, Kristin
G. Congdon, (Art Education, Vol. 53, No. 6, Enlarging the Frame (Nov., 2000),
pp. 6-12), explains the idea of using recycling and craft changing everyday
objects that have fulfilled their functions, by creating new ones being either
within use or art, but because of sociological views this is not done on a
larger scale because the need for aesthetic. Though this text argues that we
can teach the consumer to enjoy creating something from leftover from our used
materials. This can be done by changing the view of the consumer on aesthetic
and the relationship between being handmade allowing the consumer the choice of
it function.
Conclusion:
