|
good taste and minimalist chairs humping madly (by Sam Maxfield 2001) © Touch Nottingham (internet magazine and What's On guide)
Bars in Hockley are almost indistinguishable from Waterstones, take away the books and you'll find chrome and beechwood veneers, tasteful sofas, grey glass, wooden flooring. You'll find these in the cinema (Warner Village), and even the bus shelters have adopted this style. Same, same, same, same, same. You might think that I have problems with this particular design style. The answer to that would be yes and no. Is pleasing to the eye? Yes. Do I have a problem with the basic premise of the design - that of clean lines, uncluttered, unfettered living? Well no, not really. It's not to my individual taste, but that's not the same as thinking it wrong. I'm just so bored. Just so mind-numbingly bored. I find it empty. The beech wood is only a veneer; underneath the surface it is hardboard or MDF. Does it matter? Maybe not, but perhaps it stands as a metaphor. The inoffensive simple good taste of 'Swedish' design is a facade, just as the beech wood is a facade (beech wood is an expensive 'tasteful' wood). Bad taste doesn't lie underneath the surface, but more a lack of any taste. Any developed, individual, creative taste, good or bad. Perhaps that is the point. These are places to take your labels and logos, your lifestyle 'affiliations' without fear of conflict or clashing. A void to be filled. Or not. An assertion of sophistication and intellectualism pervades these places which is utterly false. So what does it matter? This is the question I return to, again and again. I return to it because I can't quite find the answer. I feel it in my gut - an insistent sense that homogeneous culture is dangerous - but to articulate why brings up inherent problems. My own background is that of arts and design. My parents could build a perfectly good house out of matchsticks I'm sure. Individuality and creativity were staples of my childhood. Innovation was an imperative, because my parents took risks with their careers and lifestyle, and money was often very short of supply. I was brought up to value myself in terms of creativity, in terms of exploring and expressing my individuality. It was, and still is a shock to find that not only do most people not do this, but that they don't want to. They actually want the comfort of homogeneity. I remember asking a friend why everyone at a party was wearing virtually the same shoes. "Why do they all want to look the same?" I asked. "They don't," he said. "They just don't want to look different." Therefore my own discomfort with homogeneity may be just that. Mine. And if it is just me (and a few others) then perhaps it is my opinion that is wrong. After all is homogeneity such a bad thing? It makes society run smoothly. People know their place within their chosen cultures (because there are different identifiable 'groups' within the main), which is comfortable. It doesn't make people automatons. They still have their distinctive personalities. And isn't it simply elitism to view oneself as different? A trick of the ego, or a way of avoiding the pain of feeling an outsider. I don't really know, and yet I do. Deep down in my gut, I do. I'm not advocating anarchy, or the end of capitalism. I'm not saying we should walk around asserting our individuality in outlandish ways, or avoid fashion or styles or design or 'lifestyles'. I'm not saying we shouldn't prefer one brand to another (if you're really sure who controls that brand). But does it all have to be chrome and glass? Do I have to see the Nike swoosh everywhere I go? Please, oh please, just make it all a little less boring. read more rants and raves |
