Trinkets - Acrylic on Canvas Alexander ShulmanWhat would you save if your house was burning down?
Before just grabbing your handbag....what things are REALLY precious to you. Perhaps something which has a special memory, something sentimental. Something which might have material or spiritual worth...inherited perhaps? Something which might seem worthless but has an interesting story to be told. I am not classing people or animals as possessions.
Also, I would be interested to know what things were special to you as children?
Watching my own children grow up I am always surprised by the things they place worth to, or feeling to, or places or things they remember for certain reasons.
What are the things which you treasured as a child. Which things, or places or memories have a special place in your head or your heart?
10 comments:
Thanks again to Swan for raising an interesting topic.
At the risk of being controversial, this subject really does not form part of the path I am striving to follow.
I deliberately follow a path of non-attachment to the past and the future, seeking to live only in the present which for me is the only real time that exists.
Part of this path is to removeor cease to create, the emotional hooks that we have in such things as material possessions. These to me are a product of the ego trying to defend its existence by saying "Look I do exist. I am in this photo or that present". To me the ego is something to be diminished not encouraged.
Others may find this strange and difficult to understand but if my house were to burn down with all its contents, part of me would say "Good, I am clean at last". This is reflected in the urge to become a monk, forsaking all possessions but the clothes I stand in. I realise that this is not how others choose to live but it is a way of life I find very appealing. I would be interested in others views on this but I do not expect much agreement!
A very interesting subject. If my house was burning down I would probably just save a few photos of Jamesy when he was young and my Mum because she died when I was 8 and I have very little memory of her. I cant think of any other possessions that would risk my life for. Like Bruv, material things dont hold that much interest for me any more. These things can always be re-bought if necessary.
As regards childhood objects, I have blanked out a lot of childhood memories because of my Mum's illness and only seem to remember what exists in photos of the time. I did have a puppet called Lulu that I remember and going to the sweetshop on a Sunday with my Dad. But apart from that my memories are very few.
I remember more from the period when my Dad remarried to Ailsa after the age of 10 as my family was extended to include my step brother and sister.
I had a feeling that Bruv would give a response along these lines, and I understand why. However, what I cannot understand is that if material things have these 'emotional hooks' why then do you buy material things at all? Your house is full of material things, most of them artistic, literary and very aesthetically pleasing. Many of them also not routed in the present, but in the past. How then, do you correlate the purchase of these material things with your comment above, and your Buddhist beliefs.
Namaste, as soon as I wrote this topic, I thought of you and your beautiful photograph of your mother on your bedside table, and I knew that that would of course be one of your treasures.
I am still thinking about what I would take, and will get back to you on this one!
Swanx
I will assume that Swan's remarks are kindly meant and will respond on that understanding.
While it is true that I am surrounded by the detritus of forty years of collecting and while it is true that in the past these objets d'arts held some emotional worth for me they do not now. I see them now as clutter and evidence of a previously deluded approach to life. Although I must add that while I aspire to the life of a monk, I certainly do not live like a monk now and I am sure Ciariad will vouch for me in this respect.
I have begun shedding possessions and I will follow the Arab practice of giving items to people who genuinely admire and would get pleasure from them. Again Ciariad can vouch for this practice as she is now the proud owner of a large Phil Woolway original watercolour (which I am sure you will agree will be priceless in years to come!)
So to summarise, although I admire beautiful things and will probably continue to buy them on occasion, I do not imbue them with an emotional importance any more. My view is that the bature of reality is impermanence, or as George Harrison so nicely put it 'All things must pass'. I too must pass now as I have some work to do!
Bruv
I didn't mean for my remarks to be kind or unkind, just observations of how difficult it must be to try not to have emotional hooks with things which are aesthetic, pleasurable or beautiful.
You are a very artistic person, a well read person and someone who appreciates (or did appreciate) fine objects d'art - things which in fact must scream at you - I DO EXIST!
When I wrote the title for this topic, I knew that it would provoke a debate about material possessions - that is what I wanted and I hoped that it would start a discussion about the material things we treasure for one reason or another, or those that we feel are special in some way and not just 'things' and I hoped that we would hear the stories behind these various objects.
I for one, do not agree with materialism for the sake of it, but I do personally think that it is lovely to have things which add
beauty and pleasure to our lives - these could be colours, smells, pictures, paintings, photographs, books etc.
I have decluttered over the years and like the simplicity that this brings, as I am sure you do, I also have things in my home which I really enjoy looking at, touching, smelling and feeling.
Namaste you also mentioned that material things were not as important to you now, but your house is full of beautiful things also - why do they not interest you anymore.
I suppose I have been devil's advocate by asking the question based on what you might salvage if your house was burning down and perhaps this has been taken too literally.
For me, if my house was burning down, I would take a cardboard box of simple jewellery which Mum gave to me at Christmas, not precious at all in terms of value, but precious to me and something I will treasure always and if I had the time some photos. And of course, my handbag!
Swanx
PS Phil, if you are thinking of giving away any more paintings in the future, think of your Sis! You have very good taste and I'd be happy with any one of them?
Well the last comment, also doesn't bode well for my relations with Bruv!
Of course all my comments are meant kindly and not unkindly - what I was trying to say in the opening of my last comment (very badly) was that the comment was just an observation, and was meant kindly......Get me out of here! I think my writing juices have not been flowing the last few days....over to you Bruv!
Swanx
Dear Swan, you are certainly welcome to come and take your pick of pictures from my live-in gallery, Tate Dharma!
As you explained by email you have been feeling very tired and I know what that is like, so dont worry.
When you were over at Christmas you looked very tired and I mentioned it to Mum and she agreed saying that she thought you always took on too much. I know that goes with the job description of 'mum with young kiddies', but do take some time out to be good to yourself, wont you. Why not start a practice of a few hours a week which are designated Pampering Mum Time!
Lots of love
Bruv
xx
I found Ciariad's phrase of beautiful objects 'designed to please' very thought provoking. It never occurred to me consciously before that objects can be designed to please. This is probably because I am conditioned to the idea of artists producing art for themselves, saying 'I dont care what the public thinks of this, it is about me.' While of course this approach has sometimes produced the world's greatest art, what about the everyday art of the things we have in our own homes such as kettles, decanters, cutlery etc. I often have the impression that these days many designers produce designs for these work which they think are 'different' or 'shocking' or merely plundering designs of the past, the so-called 'retro' and 'post-modern' styles. Or at worst producing an ordinary object and sticking a designer's name on it! Would it not be wonderful if they could return to Ciariad's concept of designing to please us rather than some in-you-face 'challenging' design.
Thank you Ciariad, your words opened my mind. I would be interested in Swan and Manny's views on this as to whether commercial designer's actually try to please the user any more.
This is a difficult question to answer Bruv. As you know I have some qualms about what a designer's role should be, and how responsible they should be about what they produce.
I am going to focus this conversation on the subject of product design, as there are so many elements to design that it would be very very long comment to answer all.
Many designers (not all) have big egos and therefore a lot of what goes into a design is very much what they would like to add to a product.
Designers also have to work (most of the time) to tightly drawn up briefs from clients who expect more and more commercial gains from the work they commission. Therefore, these products have to be 'on brief' which takes some of the onus of responsibility for the product from the designer to the producer - these products, however, can sometimes bring great benefits to the consumer - for example, a well designed teapot instead of one that leaks when you pour the tea out, a Dyson vacuum cleaner which has helped asthma or allergy sufferers, or medical products such as the one you might use Bruv for your insulin - the diabetic pen.
These could all be classed as designs to please (in a more practical sences) for the user, as they make the user's life easier.
There is then aesthetic design for the sake of it such as the products produced by the brand Alessi who like to have fun with the design of their products and brings (supposedly) fun into the home environment - e.g. the toilet brush which looks like a cactus.
Then there is another large movement in design which has grown considerably in the last 5-7 years called Design for All, Inclusive or Universal Design - one of the founders of this concept was the Royal College of Art, who have a fantastic department dedicated to designing products which please in a different way. Products which are easy to use, easy to see (displays), easy to open (for arthritic hands) etc., this movement was originally dedicated to the 'third age' but is now being brought into the mainstream for use by everyone, as the product designers' aims are to make everyone's lives easier.
The other area of design which I find the most interesting is eco design, or reclamation of the design of found objects. By recycling elements such as old tyres, plastics, paper, board, buttons, clothing, designers have made some fantastic new products which can be very innovative, or very retrospective, but by the use of re-mixing these materials, sometimes the results are very beautiful.
The one strand of design which I find the most difficult to defend is design for design's sake, and this could be construed also as design to please the user.
i.e. another watch design from Swatch - who already manufacture hundreds. Its 'throwaway design', but their watch designs are fun, different, and at the end of the day very useable - but do we really need another watch?
What's the time, I must away.
But before I do, check out these web sites which will give you a little more info on the topics above if you are interested...
http://www.hhrc.rca.ac.uk/programmes/ra/2002/marypics.html
http://www.renga-arts.com/
http://store.swatch.com/th_top24
http://www.alessi.com/novita2003/index.jsp
Swanx
Thanks for that insight into the world of the designer Swan. It made me think.
'Tightly drawn up briefs' sounds like someone is getting a wedgie!
I like the idea of designing in increased functionality to help people use things better but, being a layman, I think I was concerned about the look of things and how unpleasing so many things are these days. Its like the concrete blocks of the 60s that people were made to live in and which were acclaimed at the time as being so modern and which are now being pulled down because they alienate people so much.
I am not a Luddite Prince Charles but I do think that aesthetics are important to enhance peoples lives.
As the late great comedian Bill Hicks once asked his audience "Are you in marketing? Then do us all a favour and kill yourselves.' He was not known for his subtlety!
Post a Comment