Excerpts from a long conversation between Stefano Mirti and Ronald S. de Boer, crossing fashion, football, design, fetish, consumption and much more…
Here the link to the complete version.
RSDB: …can you explain the project you presented here?
SM: The “Beyond Love” one?
RSDB: Yes. The project “Beyond Love: Paraphilia”. What is it about?
SM: It is a possible answer to the theme of the symposium in the shape of a conceptual project. How to transform an airport into a different thing, just modifying few elements and items here and there. Do you know the concept of “multiverse”?
RSDB: Hmm… ….nope
SM: Ok, I’ll give you the definition as described by Wikipedia: “The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes (including our universe) that together comprise all of reality. The different universes within the multiverse are sometimes called parallel universes. The structure of the multiverse, the nature of each universe within it and the relationship between the various constituent universes, depend on the specific multiverse hypothesis considered. Multiverses have been hypothesized in cosmology, physics, astronomy, philosophy, transpersonal psychology and fiction, particularly in science fiction and fantasy. The specific term ‘multiverse,’ which was coined in 1895 by psychologist William James, was popularized by science fiction author Michael Moorcock. In these contexts, parallel universes are also called ‘alternative universes’, ‘quantum universes’, ‘interpenetrating dimensions’, ‘parallel worlds’, ‘alternate realities’, ‘alternative timelines’, etc.”. (Sorry for the rather long quote, but without this, it would be difficult to proceed on…)
(superstudio’s twelve ideal cities, 1970)
RSDB: Very interesting, but what is the link between this “multiverse” and fetish and consumption?
SM: If you accept this fact that we live in a set of multiple universes, the consequences are fairly fascinating. If we talk about football, we clearly live in a system of multiple universes. Your universe is different than mine. Actually we are watching the same game, but since we live in different conceptual universes, we do see different things. To me Marco Materazzi saying little things to Zinedine Zidane related to his sister or mother was a true genius. To you, it was a shameful act. To whisper a magic spell in the ears of Zidane and to get him berserk is (to me) an act of supreme intelligence. Perfectly fitting the only possible purpose in the final of the World Cup (that is to win the game and not be voted the “gentleman of the year”). To you it is unacceptable. In your universe, you win the game because of beautiful play. In my universe you win the game using any legal tool (the rule of football says nothing about saying things about sisters or mothers of other players).
(marcel duchamp’s boite-en-valise, 1934/41)
RSDB: Okay, I follow you but still I miss the link…
SM: In the same way there is a football game and we do see a different reality, we can have an airport with a similar effect. A great deal of designers is trying to “improve” the world using a given recipe. Are there other possible universes of meaning? Are there other things we can do? Designers are obsessed on “giving answers” (products). Is it possible to stop for a moment this exercise, and to see if it is possible to raise new/different questions? Can we use design not to make another chair, but to make us think about the world where we live?
RSDB: The airport as a narration, the airport as the ground for a tale?
SM: Yes indeed. 99.99% of the designers are busy thinking/building new airports all around the world. How come not any designer is actually thinking are “airports” the only possible answers to global transportation of people and goods?
Or, in a different way, can we question this assumption upon which: airport > tool to make people and things go around?
Could it be that we move people and things in a different way? Could it be that we use airports for other purposes than global transportation? This is what I am interested in.
RSDB: During the symposium “Fetish + Consumption” you handed over a blueprint of the paraphilia project for O’Hare International Airport Chicago (IL) (map 1 - map 2). What is the status of the current project(s)?
SM: As I was saying before, I actually don’t care much about O’Hare International Airport in Chicago. To transform the airport into an amusement park related to various sex-deviances is not my main interest. Paraphilia definition (once again, from Wikipedia) is: “Paraphilia (in greek para παρά = besides and -philia φιλία = love) refers to any powerful and persistent sexual interest other than sexual interest in copulatory or precopulatory behavior with phenotypically normal, consenting adult human partners”.
My curiosity is to challenge the current idea where you have a lot of “normal” people, and few “special” ones who have some kind of deviance. In my understanding we all have deviances. Some of us are aware of this, some others are not. If you read the whole list of “paraphilia”, you’ll surely find yours (as I did with mine). Why is it that all these things can’t be taken as main ingredients of contemporary design? Why do we generally never spend a second thought for real on what it means to design in a world in which “fetish” is shaping 99% of our lives? Fetish, sex, fear… These are incredibly relevant topics.
RSDB: Personally, I love long hair naked girls in knee-high black suede boots, is that one of the paraphilia? Do you have a personal connection yourself with one or more of the paraphilia?
SM: Of course I do, in the same way you do and we all do… This project, it is just an exercise of “critical design”…
RSDB: What do you mean by “critical design”?
(andy warhol’s velvet underground featuring nico – record cover, 1966)
RSDB: What do you mean by “critical design”?
SM: Wikipedia (I love this thing you can find anything you need in a blink, just by clicking on “Wikipedia”) would say: “Critical design, popularized by Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby, uses designed artifacts as an embodied critique or commentary on consumer culture. Both the designed artifact (and subsequent use) and the process of designing such an artifact causes reflection on existing values, mores, and practices in a culture. A critical design will often challenge its audience’s preconceptions and expectations thereby provoking new ways of thinking about the object, its use, and the surrounding environment”.
RSDB: It seems to me that for critical design the theme of paraphilia is a sort of everlasting source, which provides you with many different attitudes that are under ‘normal conditions’ considered as aberrant. According to you, are there perhaps also other themes outside paraphilia you can work with to create critical design?
SM: Yes, of course. The first that comes to my mind would be “fear”.
RSDB: Regardless of the fact that you have been working on the implementation of paraphilia and design on a clothing collection, which can be seen on this website, do you have already some other artefacts in mind you would like to design with regard to paraphilia?
SM: No. Actually the original project was intended to be clothing. It originally started with miss Denise Bonapace. Then, for a number of practical and silly reasons, it took much longer than expected. So, this is the reason I made the “airport” booklet. Finally, my original intention was to design a collection of clothes. Given my “designer” nature, I would be now interested to see what happens with the clothes. After the “alpha release” to make a second one, to find a garment factory in China, to produce them on limited series, to sell… For the time being, I am busy with other things…
RSDB: Are you still working on this project with miss Bonapace?
SM: Well, actually not. The original concept was developed together. Then, she got busy on other things, so the project went asleep for a while. After some months, it went into actual production (these prototypes) with the collaboration of Alice Pelliccia Serafini. It is a flexible project. It takes people in and people out.
Now there are four, five people working on it. Myself, Alice, Mariano Dallago (to have perfect photographs is essential)… It started as a project of two people (Denise and myself) and now it became an Id-Lab project with various people involved…
RSDB: Do you know artists/designers who themselves also work with the theme or otherwise are involved into critical designing?
SM: Yes of course. I know Tony Dunne and Fiona Raby quite well. They are incredibly smart and important in contemporary debate. The same could be said for Marti ‘Guixe’ or Elio Caccavale. Crispin Jones is another incredible source of ideas and suggestions…
When I was young, I had the chance and the pleasure of working with Corrado Levi. That was important. Ettore Sottsass is another key reference…
You never invent anything. Someone did before you did. Before Tony and Fiona there are Superstudio, Archizoom, Archigram… Finally I believe that everything relevant in the XXth century goes (in a way or in another) all the way back to Duchamp…
RSDB: In your lecture at the symposium you were telling about the supposition what if the Dada movement had won over Bauhaus as the dominant architectural style of the 20th Century….
SM: Exactly. We do design airports (any other thing), using the “modern” paradigm. “Modern” in the sense of Bauhaus, Mies…
Imagine we are designing an airport without using Bauhaus diktats (form follow function and all the rest) and we use Duchamp instead. What kind of airport would come out? Would it be better? Or worse?
The Netherlands could win a football tournament playing beautiful football. Italy could win a football tournament playing dirty football. There are different options on the table. We can talk about it. We can have a discussion, agree and/or disagree.
If we talk about airports, this is not allowed. There is only one model: the functional one. What a bore…
Let’s shuffle things a little bit, let’s start from a completely different question: “What if…”
RSDB: This “what if” question is very appealing to me and I wonder, what if your current projects on paraphilia are completed and become hypes and fashionable mass products on the commodity market; to what extent could the critical design still claims its critical context, i.e. ‘when it challenges its audience’s preconceptions and expectations thereby provoking new ways of thinking about the object, its use, and the surrounding environment?’
SM: The main thing about my design is not the actual design, but rather the “what if” question. It should be to remind that we can actually stop for a second and ask ourselves “what if”. “What if” is the archetypal question of both any science-fiction tale, as well as of social fiction, and – in some extents – cautionary tales; the starting point of any possible parallel universe. What I am fascinated by is this fact that we live in a “multiverse” system. To imagine, think, design, craft things related to parallel universes. If then, they become our actual universe, this is not so relevant to me.
RSDB: Can you give me some examples?
SM: I am in charge of this NABA design school. What if we shape a school like a playground? Why does a school has to be in a given way?
So, I started from a couple of “what if” questions, and then we reshaped the school. Does it work? Perfect.
The main thing (as a designer) is to open windows to different worlds, different possibilities. In this extent, Duchamp, Dada, Surrealists they are much more relevant than the so-called “masters” (horribly stiff and boring figures). You can apply this to schools, to football, to airports, to whatever you want. This interests me. The relationship between fetish, our everyday life and “multiverse”… Can I design “fetish” objects or services related to the activities of an academic institution? How?
(mayan code)
RSDB: Okay, but then let me go deeper, what are the limits of critical thought?
SM: If you are able to stand the incredible pressure of going on/off in a constant schedule. This is a very clear boundary. Then, of course, to be always critical, you become boring and obvious. Even more so, to be always commercial and easy, that is boring too. Imagine like being a television with several channels. Then you have this remote, you click, and you change channel…
Of course, this implies an incredible amount of nervous strength… Generally, people busy with this exercise, they end up badly.
RSDB: Some examples?
SM: Jimi Hendrix would not stand that pressure. At the opposite, Johan Cruyff was able to swap constantly between the “I play for passion and for beauty” and the “I am here for the money” role. He is a true genius. Constantly opening new possibilities, windows into new worlds. 1978 World Cup. He didn’t go because he would rather go on holiday with his wife… Can you imagine that?
RSDB: Yeah, but recently it was recovered that there was also something like the threats and he being afraid of getting kidnapped in Argentina. Still, what are the parameters of opening up different possibilities? I mean, what if critical thinking is encapsulated or countered by something Herbert Marcuse called “repressive tolerance”?
SM: Repressive tolerance… Marco Van Basten coaching the Netherlands, this is what I would define “repressive tolerance”. In fact, Seedorf who is very intelligent, would not accept it…
RSDB: Ahh my blind spot! I always felt something was wrong with this Van Basten and now I see it… Yet still, for example, if I now ratify, confirm your critical thought on Materazzi being a genius in football instead of saying he’s a dirty dog, what’s happening then when I step into your conceptual universe and leave mine?
SM: Well, this is a very delicate moment. Multiverses do work on this principle of “multiplicity”. When everything gets mixed, then the party is over. If Italy starts to play beautiful football, then, it wouldn’t work anymore. You won’t like it. I won’t like it. Few ones are allowed to make these leaps. Those are the masters, the timeless gods. But, to be able to live, we need a very limited amount of timeless gods. A couple per century is more than enough… Once in the twentieth century you have Duchamp, Joyce, Ringo Starr (the real Beatles), there you are…
RSDB: Let me sketch the following which perhaps directly has nothing to do with paraphilia, although I am not sure whether some people could get sexually aroused by it. Take for example the colour orange with regard to the Dutch national team, could this be seen as a repetitive temporary nationwide and collective adopted fetish for in other circumstances opposing social, political and economic groups, since the colour originally springs from the royal House of Orange and has in essence nothing to do with football at all?
SM: To answer this, we would need Goethe and Itten… A lot of colour theory… But probably this wouldn’t take us much further, because it has finally something to do (again) with this multiverse thing. If I am a Spanish gentleman in the bullfight arena, a red flag will have a very deep and clear meaning for me.
At the same time, for the Bolsheviks who took the Winter Palace in 1917, the red flag carried a completely different meaning… It is not about perception, it is about “fetish”. There is an object, and we make this object very special, with almost magical power. In this extent the shirt of a football player is a great example of “fetish”. For instance, the colour of the Italian shirts has exactly a similar origin as yours. “Azzurri” are the “light blue” ones, because “azzurro” is the colour of Savoy. So, finally our boys even if they defend like Bolsheviks, they wear the royal azzurro outfit…
(luis bunuel’s belle de jour, 1967)
RSDB: In this respect, football as contemporary metaphor to recreate the traditional battles and wars between kingdoms with the players as noble knights- to quote Dutch coach Rinus Michels: “Voetbal is oorlog” (football is war). Fetish-wise, that seems fairly fetish to me but what about the consumption?
SM: Well, didn’t Lenin say: “The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of fetish and consumption”?
RSDB: I thought he referred to the millstones of taxation and inflation, didn’t he?
SM: You might be right, I don’t remember exactly… I just try to nicely wrap up our conversation…
RSDB: What about George Best? Wouldn’t he fit better in our conversation centred around football, fetish and consumption?
SM: Which quote again? “I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered”?
RSDB: I thought we were on fetish and consumption…
SM: You mean his opinion on David Beckham?
RSDB: “He cannot kick with his left foot, he cannot head a ball, he cannot tackle and he doesn’t score many goals. Apart from that he’s all right”
(salvador dali’’s venus de milo with drawers, 1936)
Ronald S. de Boer (1981) has a MA in contemporary art history, art theory and aesthetics. He currently holds a PhD Candidature at VU University Amsterdam and also works as a para-performative artist-historian.
Stefano Mirti (1968) is a designer always busy in endless different activities. He is the responsible for design activities of Id-Lab Milano and he is the head of NABA design school in Milano.
Here the link to the complete version of the conversation.
