Aesthetics changed
This article advocates for the appreciation of surfaces, for sensory and bodily experience. It opposes an attitude that understands the social as a purposively rational system of norms and reduces sensory perception to information processing.
In 2000, the phenomenon of a new sustainable consumption was first described in books such as "The Cultural Creative: How 50 Million Are Changing The World " (Ray 2001). Under the acronym LOHAS (Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability), sociologists and futurologists examined a new group that was aligning its lifestyle with the principles of sustainability. This newly discovered consumer base differed from the old eco-freaks of the 70s and 80s less through a new mindset than through a new, aestheticized lifestyle. "We are the new eco-freaks," stated the 2007 LOHAS manifesto. "Our consumption is consistently ecological and fair, without sacrificing modernity. In contrast to the 'old eco-freaks,' we are technology-friendly and pleasure-oriented. We [...] enjoy things sustainably. We are aware of the consequences of our consumption and try to minimize them as much as possible. We are interested in health, spirituality, sustainability, and ecology. We go to yoga or Tai Chi, drink green tea or Bionade. We're often vegetarians" (karmakonsum.de 2007). These values are fundamentally not far removed from those of the "old ecos"; they have "simply" turned to new technologies and adapted to our pleasure-oriented lifestyle.
When we hear this self-description 15 years later, we can't help but immediately think of the aesthetic manifestations of these LOHAS. We see green smoothies, brown cardboard, seemingly hand-knitted wool sweaters, and photos of an idyllic coexistence in harmony with nature. Concepts like mindfulness are aestheticized on chalkboards with handwritten quality seals like "homemade" or "designed by nature." We imagine slogans like "less is more," which found their place on the mobile advertising columns of the time – the 100% organic jute bags – and "eco-fashion," which, in its new guise, still presents itself as fair, slow or green fashion . This use of existing and past aesthetic codes enabled us to reflect on "old values" in a "new" way. Abstract concepts of sustainability are once again made desirable by ascetic, nature-loving product auras. The contemporary aestheticization of the eco-look, the implementation of a "sustainable lifestyle," is enabling (sustainability-) illiterate consumer citizens to gradually identify with cycling and thermos flasks, and thus with a new environmental and consumer-critical stance. Boltanski and Chiapello (2003) understand the capitalist appropriation engendered by aesthetic practices not only as a greenwashing tool, but also aspire to the new moral consumption as a renewal of the capitalist spirit toward greater responsibility (Teigeler 2015). And this seems to have happened, given the growing number of Green voters and the committed climate demonstrations among young people. Consciousness has changed and a small group of consumer-friendly muesli eaters has managed, with the help of aestheticization processes, to sensitize a broader mass to environmental policy urgency (Zukunftsinstitut 2007), by creating not only rational but also sensually perceptible approaches that are now slipping onto the rationally controlled economic and political agenda.
Therefore, I ask specifically: Is there anyone in our ranks who believes that we would only speak with such vehemence about climate change and sustainable living today if we were only able to rely on non-aestheticized information, pure facts, and purely cognitive approaches? Do we really believe that abstract definitions such as "sustainability is a principle of action for resource use, in which the long-term satisfaction of needs is to be ensured by preserving the natural regenerative capacity of the systems involved (especially living beings and ecosystems )" (Wikipedia 2019) have made us more reflective consumer citizens? Things, including their aesthetic appearance, are both complements and alternatives to linguistic expression; like linguistic expression, they determine proximity as well as distance. This generated proximity or distance not only affects our sociability, but also enables or prevents us from new approaches to major sociopolitical issues.
This text therefore argues for considering the semiotics of things that have not yet undergone a process of aestheticization, because through them we can determine which goals and moral-ethical worldviews a performance-oriented (post-)capitalist society pursues. The ugly, the seemingly non-aesthetic, is thus just as insightful as the beautiful. It provides insights into collective values. But what happens when the non-aesthetic or de-aestheticized remains hidden because it does not seem suitable for being made "anti-aesthetically" productive? Then, according to my thesis, the ugly can prevent us from engaging with major issues, such as illness, aging, and dying, in our everyday lives because it makes identification and closeness impossible. This can result in the failure to address relevant social questions about the future, or in the ability to answer them only in a very one-sided and monosyllabic manner.
Because when we look at illness and dying, what I outlined above occurs precisely. Therefore, I ask what images come to mind when we think of terms like need for care and end of life. Shriveled, praying hands or weak, plastered hands, latex gloves, imitation wood veneer nursing beds, patterned nursing gowns, transparent rubber hoses, and a sea of chrome, steel gray, disinfectant blue, lab coat white, and surgical green may appear before our inner eye. Objects like these, along with their surfaces and symbolisms, are linked, on the one hand, to a habitualized bodily knowledge of illness, suffering, and the fear of loss of autonomy. On the other hand, they also represent the anonymity and standardization processes of economized medicine, which increasingly transforms us into deindividualized bodies, efficiently processed in healthcare factories. One could also maliciously say that these aesthetics are appropriate in a perverse sense because they "sell" illness and mortality, or "incapacity," in a correspondingly ugly way. If we consider the dreary images that symbolize the need for care, it is easy to assume that social repression and tabooization are partly to blame for precisely these imagery. I am investigating this societal as well as individual speechlessness. One question that drives me: What influence does a lack of or de-aestheticized material culture have on our relationship to illness and death? The other question that follows is speculative: If we were to recognize the power of the aesthetic and harness it, similar to what the LOHAS did a few years ago, would "mortality and illness," like "eco-being," perhaps become more socially acceptable again? A small international group of "death positive thinkers" is currently initiating these processes. I personally believe that this will not be possible without a "redesign of death worlds." Because, whether we like it or not, it is largely the aesthetics of things that act as the "social glue" and hold our world together.
Literature:
Boltanski, L., Chiapello, E. (2003): The New Spirit of Capitalism. UVK Publishing Company. Konstanz
The KarmaKonsum LOHAS Manifesto (2007): We live LOHAS – the Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability. Retrieved July 15, 2014, from https://www.karmakonsum.de/lohas_-_lifestyle-of-health-and-sustainability/
Teigeler, M. (2015): Green Marketing. In: Mair, J., Stetter, B. (eds.): Moralphobia: A Zeitgeist Glossary from Mindfulness to Cigarettes. Hamburg: Gudberg Verlag.
Zukunftsinstitut GmbH (2007): Target group LOHAS. Kelkheim
Footnote: This text excerpt is taken in part and in a slightly modified form from the book contribution “A Plea for an Aesthetic Future of Design” by Bitten Stetter, published in the book publication “Not at Your Service: Manifestos for Design” edited by Hansuli Matter, Björn Franke and published in Zurich in 2020.