Things That Matter

Interesting read of "Things that Matter" - my allocated reading.
This is a bit of a brain dumps of the ideas and concepts discussed in the reading:

1/ The Modern Movement - "form follows function". Mass production influencing/dictating the forms of objects i.e. what could be manufactured.
2/ Just designing objects felt to be reductionist/boring leading to pop design and post-modern design. Objects have meaning. Objects can be fun. That there is an emotional component/dimension to objects.
3/ That the stress on functionalism results in a loss of attachment with a particular product as any object that can do the same function has the same value (i.e is interchangeable). The object is not valued for it's uniqueness or individuality. I am also referring to mass produced objects here as each object exists independently of its brethren.
4/ Post-modern products have become icon, symbols or signs - the object has become abstracted and is considered in terms of what it signifies, communicates, or represents.
5/ Script - "the deposit in an object of the world view of the designers".
6/ Nothing terribly new here but that as designers we make design choices and discriminate. Favor one thing and exclude/omit others. That these choices can have unintended or unforeseen consequences, and that in some cases certain classes of people can be discriminated against e.g. disabled people.
7/ Exclusion is inherent as we design for particular use(s). One size does not fit all.
8/ An object does not exist in isolation. It is in relation to people.
9/ That there a feedback loop going on. Objects can "invite" certain types of usage. They can condition or train us in certain kinds of behaviors or interactions.

It also talked about TECHNOLOGICAL INTENTIONALITY. Here it started t get a bit vague for me:

"Once technologies have received identity, within that relation they nevertheless can have an own weight".
The jist that I got from that was objects can matter as things not just as signs. The way that I translate is that we can appreciate objects for what they can BE for us, not just necessarily what they can DO for us. Intrinsic value versus functional value.

The things I find interesting here is the parallel between how as a society we deal with objects and how we deal with people. The emphasis on functionality - what a thing does. Being useful. Did modernism have a fallout effect on handicapped or disabled people. When an object is no longer useful it gets discarded. I think I read somewhere about 80% of objects getting thrown away while they are still functional.
I think about getting old. Not being young and 'new' anymore. Getting put on the scrap heap. Trundled off to an old persons home while I am still functional/living.
Which kind of gives me an idea for an essay topic - Useless Things - some investigation into that area.

Back to the reading. Further concepts introduced:

1/ Ready-at-Hand Tools/objects that permit engagement through the wold through themselves. e.g a hammer.
2/ Present-at-Hand ?? hmmm. The opposite of ready-at-hand. There, but no longer operational or functional.
3/ transparency - when our awareness shifts from the tool (e.g. hammer) to the task (e.g. hammering/nailing). In a sense the hammer disappears or becomes transparent.

There is one contentious bit here for me:

0"Transparency enables people to sustain their relationship with the product even when something goes wrong". hmmm. Not sure about that one. Would you hang on to a hammer if it was broken?

ENGAGEMENT vs CONSUMPTION
Basically I think this means that we use objects without engaging with them. e.g. my Bic pen, I don't really thing twice about it, I just write with it. And that we want to aim for more of the former and less of the latter.

SUMMARY
If we cherish our objects we will keep them around for longer which means filling up landfill at a slower rate.