La marre à casse
My research focuses on repair, and more specifically on this research question: “How can individuals be allowed to have their broken objects repaired by craftsmen?
We are increasingly aware of the amount of waste we produce on a daily basis and of the finiteness of resources, both in terms of materials and energy. Although repairable objects are not the majority of the waste in our landfills, they are nevertheless exploitable materials that can be considered as a resource. The practice of repair could be a way to reduce the amount of waste we produce and at the same time reduce the production necessary for our consumer behaviour. Our excessive consumption mode, and the production of all this waste, need to be transformed in order to claim ecological responsibility. Repairing means restoring an object that we need, rather than buying a new one. I believe that it’s necessary to rethink repair through social innovation, including users, so that they feel capable of making and rethinking their objects.
Generally speaking, in design we want to show repair in contrast to the original object. Designers work on repair not as a degradation of the object, but as a wealth to be exploited. The second point on which designers agree is the functionality of the object. In my opinion, functionality is the main criteria that makes a creation a design object and not a piece of art. There are two fields in design concerned with repair: object design and social innovation design. These two positions are distinguished more by the process than the result. Object design wants to resolve the non-functionality of objects and social innovation design wants to make users aware of more sustainable behaviour through active creation.
After my interviews with craftsmen, I was able to understand that some of them are already involved in repair, however, it’s mainly with objects of the same type as those they produce. On the contrary, my scenario would be to propose to the craftsmen to diversify their field of action by working on objects that are dissociated from their field of manufacture. It’s a question of grafting a repair that contrasts with the existing object and of bringing a new point of view on it, not the one of the manufacturer but the one of the repairer. The choice of the craftsman-partner for my project will depend on the material or the technique that I’ll choose to carry out the repairs. Wood, metal and plastic seem to be the most obvious materials, but not necessarily the most relevant. I’ve identified glass as a material that makes sense for my approach. Its transparency reveals the wound of the object in its raw state, its fragility reminds us of the vulnerability of our objects and the need to take care of them, the diversity of possible shapes makes possible to adapt it to all types of volume, fine or massive.
It seems essential to me to say that my project does not aim to invent a new economic model, but rather to raise awareness of more sustainable behaviour by “making” and to value objects that have small market value. By inviting owners to rethink their objects, which they consider obsolete, by including them in the repair process, I hope that I could change their way of thinking on several points. First of all I would like to make them think about their perception of wear, that they no longer see it as a loss of value but as an enrichment of the object. This idea also induces a new perception of repair that we would no longer try to hide at all costs. It’s then about rethinking our relationship with our material environment. The goal is that the participants can feel capable of transforming the spaces they occupy, capable of making, not because they have the skills, but just because they have the idea and the desire to act. Finally, the last issue of my project is to question our excessive consumption modes, in particular by questioning the real necessity of the objects we buy and the extension of the lifetime of existing objects.