• English
• 한국어

다음카카오가 수평적인 조직문화를 위해 영어 (유럽권) 이름을 사용하기로 결정했다는 소식을 들은지 얼마되지 않아 그들의 새 웹사이트에서 Judie, Alicia, Steve, David 등의 이름을 접할 수 있게 되었다. 회사의 방침이 알파벳 이름을 가지는 것이라 원치 않게 저런 이름을 선택한 직원은 없을까? 왠지 모르게 일종의 사대주의가 아닐까 하는 생각이 들며 최근 JTBC의 비정상회담이 대부분 유럽문화권의 백인으로 채워져 있다는 비판과 그림이 겹친다.

별명이 수평적 문화에 주는 힘을 간과하는 것은 아니나 우리말로도 좋은 별명을 만들 수 있기에 안타깝다는 말이다. 한 예로 하자센터 (서울시립청소년직업체험센터)의 경우 센터를 찾는 중고등학생들과 학생들을 지도하는 선생님들이 서로의 별명을 부르고 존대말을 한다. 물론 영어 이름이 하나의 별명일 수는 있다. 하지만 유일한 선택지는 아니다. 나도 작년에 하자센터에서 이틀간 고등학생들과 함께 일할 수 있는 기회가 있었는데, 내 이름에서 한 글자를 따 “승”이라고 불러달라고 했고, “미라클”, “썬문” 등 다양한 별명이 있었다. 효과는 상당했다. 수평적인 문화에서 서로의 나이나 지난 경험보다는 지금의 이야기와 솔직한 표현에 귀를 기울일 수 있었다.

여전히 많은 한국인들이 영어 회화학원에 처음 가면 영어 이름을 지으라는 선생의 요구를 받는다. 언뜻 생각하면 영어를 공부하는 분위기에 도움이 될 것 같지만 실제로 이것이 영어 학습에 도움이 된다는 증거는 어디에도 없다. 외국인 친구가 한국 이름을 부르기 어렵다고 해서 외국인을 위한 별명을 지어주는 것도 자신 이름의 이니셜을 딴 것이나 이름의 일부를 떼어 부르는 것이 아닌 이상 좋은 결정이 아닐 수 있다. 이로 인해 수년이나 알고 지낸 한국인 친구의 진짜 이름을 모르는 경우도 허다하다. 어려워도 원래 이름대로 부르게 해 주는 것이 이름이 주는 개개인의 출신국가의 아름다운 어감을 느낄 수 있어 그들에게도 우리에게도 좋다. 처음엔 어려워도 익숙해지기 마련이다.

핀란드에 처음 왔을 때 핀란드인의 이름을 부르기가 참 어려웠다. 수년이 지난 지금 난 핀란드인의 이름을 잘 발음한다는 기분 좋은 이야기를 종종 듣는다. 난 핀란드에 그만큼 가까워진 느낌이다. 그 이름들이 가진 뜻도 조금씩 더 이해하게 되었다. 예를 들어 만시까매끼(Mansikkamäki)는 딸기언덕(Mansikka+mäki)을 말한다. 난 이제 mäki가 언덕이라는 것을 안다.

• English
• 한국어

It’s been already two weeks after I’ve spent my time in Pixelache. It was rather short, in part because I was ill for a day, but also Pixelache’s mode of operations was quite hard to comprehend in the beginning as to why Pixelache is interested in Food-Info-Activism.

Having started mainly with electronic arts in its inception, it seemed Pixelache and its staff have found themselves increasingly involved in food-related discourse in the recent years. Indeed, Pixelache has initiated a network and organised a seminar on Herbologies/Foraging Networks (2010), installed a Windowfarm in Kiasma art museum (2010), supported the curation of groWorld bazaar with FoAM (2011), co-organised the Open Data Cooking workshop (2012), and a Coop Camp focusing on food-related cooperation (2012). Still, Food-Info-Activism sounds far from what seems to be at the heart of Pixelache’s operation, and the question for me is how Pixelache will make an explicit thread that joins all of these with the other things that Pixelache is doing.

The biggest gain for me was getting acquainted with Pixelache and its people, getting to know a number of initiatives in Helsinki, and the area where those organisations and initiatives seem to operate – Suvilahti and the neighbouring area. Even this Monday (4.3.), I talked to Nathalie once again to make sure that we’re on the same page and we’re headed roughly to the same direction. As Nathalie said, I feel that the micro-residency was only the beginning of my contribution with Pixelache, as the ‘Foodycle’ event will take place in September with the aim to combine art, design, science and system-thinking to investigate, explore, provoke and urge thought in Finnish food culture.

Soon after I went to Slow Food Helsinki‘s meeting and have had a very positive discussion on the collaboration for ‘Foodycle’ event. Also, on Tuesday that same week at Nordic Sustainable Campus Network Seminar I met Hanna-Liisa of WWF Finland and was told that food is one of the main themes of WWF this year! I am hopeful all these coincidences will lead to collaborations and a great success of Foodycle.

After all, I feel I have earned and learned more from the experience than I contributed to Pixelache, but I know this is only the beginning. Thank you Andrew and Nathalie, I will be looking forward to the projects to come!

지금은 자주 연락하지 않지만 옛날에 자주 나를 한강에 데려다 주었던 고마운 친구가 있다. 내가 심란하다고 하면, 혹은 본인이 심란하면 아버님 차에 나를 태우고 한강변에 가곤 했다. 어쩌면 그렇게 자주 있었던 일이 아닌지도 모른다. 내 기억이, 고마움이 그 횟수를 부풀린지도. 우린 주로 늦은 시간에 봤고 한강변에 가서 캔 커피 따위나 마시며 이런 저런 이야기를 나누곤 했었다. 그 친구에게 미안해 말을 꺼낸 적은 없지만 사실 난 어두운 강변에 앉아있는 것으로 마음에 위안을 받은 적은 없었던 것 같다. 아니 한번쯤은 있었다고 해도 기억이 나지 않는다고 하는 것이 정확할까.

처형과 동서가 사는 뉴욕 버팔로에서 여름을 보내고 있는데, 시내를 둘러보다 시청 근처의 이리 호 가까이 가게 되었다. 마주하고 있는 태양이 아주 강했는데 마침 바람이 우리쪽으로 아주 강하게 불고 있었다. 분명 바람이 불지 않았다면 땀이 날 만큼 높은 온도였는데 강한 바람 덕에 덥지도 시원하지도 않았다. 그 묘한 미지근한 따뜻함에 왠지 위안 받는 느낌이었다.

옛날 태국 한 여행지에서 통통배 스노클링을 한 적이 있다. 얼마간의 돈을 주면 작은 통통배에 몸을 싣고 처음 만난 십수명의 사람들과 해변에서 좀 떨어진 곳에 가서 스노클링도 하고, 배 위에서 선장이 해주는 볶음밥도 먹고, 나중엔 상어 양식장도 가보는 일종의 패키지 상품이었던 것으로 기억하는데 나중에 해변으로 다시 돌아오는 시간이 얼마나 걸렸는지 기억나진 않지만 배에서 일하는 태국 선원 중 한명이 사다리를 타고 배의 지붕으로 올라가는 것을 보고 따라 올라갔던 기억이 있다. 느리게 양쪽으로 흔들리는 통통배의 지붕에 누워 낮잠을 자는 그 직원을 보고 나도 반대편에 웃통을 벗고 덜렁 누워 잠을 청했다. 서너시쯤 부드러워진 태양 아래 흔들 흔들 덥지도 시원하지도 않은 통통배 나무 지붕에서의 낮잠. 이리 호 앞에서 그때가 떠올랐다.

We all have known this for a while.

For quite a while. It’s not like we did not know that there are people in China–actually not only in China but also in Thailand, Vietnam, wherever the labour is cheaper and the regulation on worker’s right is loose–and we have taken it for granted. Let’s ask ourselves: have I not known that there are people in other countries who work so hard for so little compensation, and some of them–actually many of them–get ill because of the chemicals they unprotectedly use for fabrication efficiency, or the impossibly long hours? Did I not hear the word “sweatshop” ever? Maybe it’s time to think about it. This radio show helps empathise.

No sweatshop, no iPhone.

Actually, the whole iPhone business model is built around it. When iPhone 3 was released no one in the industry could believe its price tag although it was the most expensive phone back then. According to a credible source who works in the mobile phone industry in Korea, Apple preordered 40 million iPhones at once to make it cheaper. No wonder that they are still selling–which is funny word for this as it is free of charge including shipping with two year AT&T contract–iPhone 3Gs. The tragedy at Foxconn premises and Apple’s nice offer on their nice website are only different sides of the same coin.

Some claims that Apple fabricates iPhone not in the US but in China to save “only” 26 per cent of the manufacturing cost. Whether true or not, it’s not “only” 26 per cent, any manufacturer will go to China if they can save by a matter of a cent. Besides, 26 per cent of manufacturing cost means, literally GO or NO GO for a business model, and hence no Foxconn and no China means no iPhone. Well, no Galaxy Tab, no Kindle, no Vaio either.

The whole world is being built around it. It’s not only Apple. Nike has been notorious for its poor welfare for its suppliers. Believe it or not Nike’s initial business model was to import cheap Japanese shoe to US market and beat US made shoe. Think of IKEA, H&M, Zara, Muji, and try to remember where they are made. All of them are selling Californian, Swedish, Spanish, Japanese lifestyle made in, and by hands of others. No sweatshop, no Nike, no IKEA, no H&M, no Zara, nor no Muji. Not that I am saying that they wouldn’t exist–they would be much smaller that they are now, and there must be many more smaller companies that offer alternatives.

Then why is only Apple being targeted? Is it because Apple is so fancy and seems more successful than the others now, or is it because Apple is more evil? Again, don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to dilute the blame for Apple. What I am saying is that we shouldn’t be on the hype, blaming Apple for now, and forget about the whole thing and go back to where we are, which we shouldn’t.

It’s not only electronics or fashion. Ceramics, cooking ware, furniture, even food and magazines in high volume. It’s all built on faster, better, cheaper, more economy model in which we “consumers” increasingly consume forever, and what the world expects is that those people in China and elsewhere will get capability of buying things and become a new group of consumers that will help the sluggishly developing economy in the developed countries. It can’t go forever, and there are growing evidences. In fact, there have been bright minds that talked about the limits to growth from early 70’s, we’ve just been uninformed, uninterested, and/or ignorant.

It’s not only the consumerism.

It’s not only the consumerism, but also globalization, and hence our governments’ policies whether they promote growing conglomerate and export, or helping start-ups and entrepreneurship. It’s only natural for any corporations to try to save costs and dominate the market by providing the same or better products and services at lower price, and it is easier job for bigger corporation. Look at the curricula in management schools, it’s all about–at least a big fraction of it is–ensuring more efficiency. In other words making anything cheaper anyhow–cut employees out, moving manufacturing to China, outsourcing everything that seems not essential, creating shared services offshore–doing it all at even lower cost.

Now, try to order a few hundred anything you designed for fabrication in China. You will hear a firm NO if you’re lucky, otherwise you won’t not even get to see or talk to a person. Still a few hundred is a big risk for a start up! So, all this business model is only possible for a company larger than certain size–and the certain size is becoming larger and larger all the time. Does your countries cut taxes for large corporations? Well, mine does, which is no good. Do your politicians say that it’s the only to revitalize the economy? Well, vote for others next time. What is more, with such big corporations offering cheaper and cheaper products, consumers become more and more price-sensitive while they are buying what they do not really need.

What can we do?

Many. Not that I am saying you can change Apple’s or Samsung’s supplier overnight. But you can be influential for many other things. Here are some ideas I can immediately think of. Feel free to join and contribute!

1. Don’t buy–unless you really really need it. Look at your desk, don’t you have so many things that you don’t use after only a while? A digital camera that you bought because it was cheap. A pair of sunglasses because it was cheap. A polaroid printer that prints digital images as if it was taken by a polaroid. We’d can do better than this.
2. Look for 2nd hand–before look for a new one. What about dishes, forks, spoons, sewer, rice cooker, microwave, folders, furniture, rugs, or books? There are so many products that are being landfilled as they are not demanded. And it’s fun to hunt for 2nd hand! At first you will tend to collect a lot of crap, but you’ll get better! There are growing groups of people and initiatives that promotes reusing. Reuse is certainly better than recycle, and definitely must better than landfill.
3. Be aware where things are made when you have to buy new product – and look around, there most-likely are smaller companies that make products for the same use in your country. By doing 1 and 2, you will have more money to afford things that are made in your country or where the corporate responsibility and employee welfare actually mean something. Plus, you will indirectly help encourage people to get on creating new businesses – that is good not only for your local economy but also the global economy.
4. Use what you have carefully and for a long time – otherwise sell or donate if you do not use it. A big fraction of the stuff being landfilled is still usable, and in almost perfect conditions. Out of order? Fix it if it’s possible, and sell or donate if you are absolutely sure that you don’t need it anymore. There are whole other people who might look for exactly what you’re throwing away.
5. Finally, support small companies that are trying to promote local labour – buy their products, help them by giving them useful feedback. They will appreciate it much more than big corporations.

Hope this was helpful, and your thoughts are always welcome.

Design has long been considered a problem solving discipline since the Industrial Revolution. Mass production: we’ve become able to produce goods that existed for long–like textile and plates–in ever-larger quantity with new means of production. The industry faced a problem and required people who can give new shapes to products that are desirable to their customers, technologically feasible, and economically viable to the business¹. By the beginning of 20th century design faced a new sets of problems: how to give shapes to products that never existed before. Toaster, radio, TV, and washing machine were newly introduced and to be designed interesting, desirable, affordable, easy, and safe. From 1940’s more advanced corporations began to compete with brand propositions, where design has faced a new set of challenges. Over time, design has evolved embracing anything required–usability, material science, cognitive science, ergonomics, ethnography–to solve the problems before us.

Interestingly enough, Critical Design, one of the newly emerging approaches in design, positions itself at the opposite side of conventional design that, according to Dunne & Raby, is affirmative to the status quo. They claim to “use design as a medium to stimulate discussion and debate amongst designers, industry and the public about the social, cultural and ethical implications of existing and emerging technologies”². They further elaborate what they do through a/b (2009) that critical design is problem finding, functional fiction, provocation, rhetoric, and makes us think, as opposed to problem solving, fictional function, innovation, ergonomics, and makes us buy. They drew a clear line between critical design and the other.

The argument of Dunne and Raby is sensible as design has been traditionally affirmative to the given challenges. We designers conventionally–and conveniently–start working by receiving a brief one way or the other. But, what if the problems were not framed properly in the first place? What if the problem was targeting the symptom of a problem not the source of it? We try to wiggle out and create impact by expanding the scope, but the point of commission has become already downstream of the project, and there is only so much we can change upstream. Consequently we may end up–and often we do–putting awful lots of effort to deliver right answer to the wrong questions.

I would argue that Critical Design and conventional one shall not be the two unconnected, but parts of a continuum as the attempt of Critical Design is not to only discuss what has not been being discussed but eventually to alter the reality for the better by helping people see the unseen. One of the ways to go upstream, certainly, is critical approach discovering and communicating the undiscussed as criticism by definition naturally implies that there is a fault or a mistake in a rationale of a solution, of a system, or of a society. But, how does criticism contribute improving the reality if the newly found problems are separate from problem solving? Obviously there is a weak link between criticism and reality if there is no connective tissue. By comprehending both problem finding and problem solving as integrated work we may witness the expanding responsibility of designers in designing pathway to a preferred future.

Within that, we also need to design briefs–design brief, architectural brief, project brief, et cetera–upstream in order to alter the reality. If we consider a design solution to be a result of consecutive decision making, we can say that important design decisions are already made in creating the brief. Accordingly, we ought to participate in–or even unsolicitedly initiate–creating the brief in order to create lasting impact to the preferred future.

–