01)Erin_Smith-Keen| Objectified: Response

 

OBDF 110 A
Bryan Cera 
Erin Smith-Keen 
Jan 13 2024

Objectified 

An objective overview of objects. 

The documentary, Objectified (Hustwit 2009), follows the production of goods and objects in multiple different lenses and contexts. Throughout the documentary the viewer is taken throughout the world of object production and object design. 

    Objectified defected not only the pieces of production but the motivations and sequences within the designing process. There were constant themes of thinking about efficiency, exploring the ideas of doing the job of multiple object with just one. Along with this the documentary explored mind mapping and following multiple ideas in, mostly, the pursuit of function. Part of this was experimenting with different processes and trying to look for whats not obvious, and then designing “small or “unnoticeable” features; that despite their unnoticeable features are meticulously designed still. 

    When watching this documentary, as someone who has little to no experience or connection to object design, it was interesting to see the different aspects that go into production. Not only in the line of production, but in what, as designers, motivated people to be a part of that industry. It interested me how incredibly, for lack of a better term, human, all of the motivations behind the production of objects were. The little ways in which life and routine impacted the way designer’s viewed creating product was a new perspective upon object design, as it also shows an awareness of the consumers as individuals. This idea is also explored in how we, as humans, find connection to objects, find familiarity in them; almost nostalgic feelings of objects being associated with people and experiences. An example being that of dad always having his chair, or mum always having her reading glasses, each having something in their production or design that makes them unique in some way. 

The object that I chose was to create was the Muji Wall-Mounted CD Player, which was demonstrated/introduced by Designer Naoto Fukasawa. The object itself was designed originally by Fukasawa himself. 

        I chose to use this object not only for its simplicity but also the things that a CD player can represent.  Hand in hand with the themes of consumerism came the themes of society and its forever changing world of needs and wants. A clear example of this is the discussion of  the annihilation of form over function with the invention of the microchip, that the “look” of product shift with this advancement. I felt that this was exemplified in the CD player, as even now in our current society, they have become more and more of a commodity than something everyone uses; in the face of the smart phone that can play multiple albums at a time without having to switch anything out when you want a change.  I also felt as though the CD player spoke to the narrative later addressed in the documentary of sustainability.

There is a bigger and bigger need for sustainability in the production of goods, which is not a glamorous process but a reimagining of the entire production process. I believe that even if it’s not glamorous, it is necessary. The documentary took place in 2009, where the issue of climate change and human impact was something we were accurately aware of. Whereas now we understand more of the detrimental impact the production of goods has been and continues to be on our ecosystems. If we do not adjust how the process of production we will continue to see these impacts the disappearance of a healthy planet. 

    A spread of awareness when it comes to consumerism of goods, also goes into the designing of the goods themselves.  

    

    While, yes, one CD player is not the sole culprit of the earth dying, I thought it was an symbol of the furthering of technology and consumerism, in comparison to a more common mode of musical experience in 2024 like a smart phone or iPod; and also highlights that of how we need to reevaluate production of all goods as in comparison to each other ones production is not “better” or more sustainable than the other.