Praecox-blueprint

Cultural Chic - a reflection on design

The forum that goes along with the exhibition "Cultural Chic - Contemporary Lifestyle Products in the Context of Chinese Culture" held last Saturday (30.Oct) at the sd gallery of the Polytechnic University was a good opportunity for someone like me to have a quick review and overview of the up-to-date issues about contemporary design.

It started off quite quickly getting into the discussion about cultural issues in design, after an audience had responded to Rosanna Li's introduction about her own work, with a keen question: "But is Cha Tsan Tang (Tea Restaurant), the theme of your work, a specific HK culture?" By answering, "Everything that shares a part in the designer/artist's real life is cultural and therefore has a significance, even it may look cliché," she seemed not quite ready to give more insights about the topic although she was one of the two curators of the project. I was quite surprised when she further remarked that "designers are supposed to create things not necessary or not there (無個樣整個樣)." The theme of the forum, "Design and Cultural Identity", should be Miranda's (the other curator) idea, I thought.

Andrew Lam (designer) changed the path of thought by mentioning the function of "culture perpetuation" in the work of designers, which I agreed a lot. And Benny Leong: "Thoughtless designs could be harmful to a culture, which is essential for any individual as his/her nature and memory." And he questioned why we needed such an identifiable quality as "Hong Kong culture", considering a more provocative concern of what we want to achieve through that identity.

The forum was interesting because every involved participant (speaker) seemed standing at an entirely different perspective of what design is as a premise. While Miranda revealed her view later about the urge to have an identity of local design for professional development (as triggered by many foreigners' impression that identifies Hong Kong designs as brilliant copies, still), Li Tsz Leung (potter/object designer) was promoting a more pragmatic viewpoint: surviving in the market and promoting creativity and culture, or quality of a design, are incompatible. Then Siu King Chung (creative education) would suggest design should include what he called "lesser designs", like the methods/tools "ordinary people" used to solve problems in living, like DIY construction of architectural space, objects without brands, etc. He called design or cultural identity a process of "thematicisation" for various objectives.

I tried to respond at the forum with some questions raised before and during the discussion, but it was a bit too fast as different notions emerged for an amateur to cut in. So I left them for my own reflection. Firstly, in what criteria can we evaluate the quality of life except by the notion of style and desire in our superfluous world. Mostly because I don't buy the curatorial statement that "the need of lifestyle products goes beyond necessities....(but) a means of shaping our lifestyles and satisfying our desire to personalise our ways of living." (Perhaps that's what put me in the realm of Fine Arts rather than Design?) Second, I was thinking the pursuit of originality for a brand could be a very western idea which enslaves other possibilities. What is more valuable in a design except being original or innovative? Last but not least, what consumeristic designs are creating besides satisfaction of desire (if it could be satisfied at all); are they enhancing the concept of class? What kind of "quality" designers should further strive for?

posted at 1:49 AM | View by Post