I appreciate Kristina Borjesson's elaboration about the slipping
"here and now" (to which we might add the "there and then").
The philosophical problem on instantiation is here announced in a
mild
form. There can be no two instances of X in time and space - identity
at the least, must be different for each instance for there to be two
instances.
The short answer is "convention" - we establish various conventions
that
mark instances with significance. This leads to levels of attention such
that
the conventions of instances in the case of poetry are much more fine tuned
than
they are for either drama or the epic. Post Modern critics have had much
fun
by using the conventions of one discourse to opne up another discourse -
we
now read novels as if they were gigantic poems with endless differences
each
of which will spark joy if only we would attend.
This is a very silly pose that I think David Sless is attacking in his
recent post
on deep causality. My difficulty with David's position is that greater and
less amount
of difference make sense in different discourses. No amount of simple
elaboration will
make up for a missing purpose (hard intention) but certain cognitive
processes require
the idiot level of attention of poetry before the patterns will
emerge.
Beautiful mind it aint that puzzles puzzles without purpose - and hence a
purpose gets
made up (psychosis).
all the best
keith russell
Hello Mark, Rob, Ken, Nicholas, Chris, Keith,
Klaus, Mikko et al.
This is a quite long post, but not very
demanding.
Most, rather than a few, notes in this discussion
on timeless design have not only brought my thinking forward but
also widened the subject matter in a very 'healthy' way.
The issue of new-time and now-time (in German
now-time is called both neuzeit and jeztzeit, Koselleck in Osborne 95) is in a
way central for the concept of timeless-ness. As the German vocabulary shows,
now also implies new. According to Koselleck again, it was The Enlightenment
that brought with it that now meant newness and was superior to what was before.
Osborne also points out that modern (from modo=recently) has shifted from
meaning 'now' to 'just now' or even 'then'. This has given us
'contemporary', which is 'newer' than the modern. What is modern
opposed to? Ancient? Or rather all completed historical periods? If the latter,
then modern is actually opposed to traditions and Modernity understood as
the first epoch. It was during Modernity it first beame possible to create
new without to much effort and thus from this epoch, the idea of newness started
to become regularised, and designers 'deplete tradition by
invention ... deplete future resources by unreflective absorption in the
here and now' (John Wood, notes, 2002)
The concept of timeless-ness is defying
now-time in a way that has nothing to do with the date of its production.
Every object is forever linked to this date, the object was new at that
date (hopefully) and will never be 'new' again. But as timeless to
most implies not only an irrelevance of now but also an eternity, I
doubt its usefulness in an academic work, where focus isn't on philosophical or
religious matters.
As I have already discussed in some personal notes,
my reason for posing the queries on Timeless was a wish to find out
about its relevance as 'defying of now-time' rather than the
formally correct versions like 'eternal' etc. My aim with my work is to
contribute to able sustainable design in an enlarged sense comprehending
not only the ecological but the transitive.
As I indicated above, the regularisation of
new-ness works against transitive design and, as follows, for
styling.
Consumption drives the western economies and
new-ness is of course an imperative for consumption. The awareness of
limited resources is working against the regularisation of new-ness. Mikko Koria
advices me to visit ethnographic museums to find 'timeless' designs. She is
probably right. In cultures and times (before Modernity and mass
production) where resources are/were limited, most designs had to be transitive.
Several very successful designers also admit to being not only inspired but
learned by objects and/or details from epochs way back.
Mikko, I think your example with the
headbasket is wonderful. I had a similar experience when visiting a big national
museum in Tokyo and looking at their exhibition of ceramics from 1000 years back
and more. Very little has been added to these designs over this very long
period leading to today!
Kind regards
Kristina
