Aesthetics changed

This article advocates the appreciation of surfaces, of sensory and physical experience. It opposes an attitude that understands the social as a purposive-rational norm system 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 group of buyers 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," states the LOHAS manifesto in 2007. "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 know about the consequences of our consumption and try to keep them as low as possible. We are interested in health, spirituality, sustainability and ecology. We go to yoga or Tai Chi, drink green tea or Bionade. We are often vegetarians" (karmakonsum.de 2007). These values ​​are not fundamentally far removed from the "old ecos"; they have "just" turned to new technologies and adapted to our pleasure-oriented lifestyle.

If we hear this self-description 15 years later, we cannot help but immediately think of the aesthetic manifestations of these LOHAS. We see green smoothies, brown cardboard, self-knitted wool sweaters and photos of an idyllic coexistence in harmony with nature. Terms such as mindfulness are aestheticized in chalkboards with handwritten quality seals such as "homemade" or "designed by nature". We imagine slogans such as "less is more" that found their place on the mobile advertising columns of that time - the 100% organic jute bags - and "eco-fashion" that is still fair and presents itself as slow or green fashion in a new guise. This use of existing and past aesthetic codes enabled us to reflect on "old values" in a "new" way. Abstract concepts of sustainability are becoming desirable again through ascetic-looking, nature-loving product auras. The contemporary aestheticization of the eco-look, the implementation of a "sustainable lifestyle" enables (sustainability-) uneducated consumer citizens to gradually identify with cycling and thermos flasks and thus with a new environmental and consumer-critical attitude. Boltanski and Chiapello (2003) understand the capitalist appropriation brought about by aesthetic practices not only as a greenwashing instrument, but they also believe that the new moral consumption will renew the capitalist spirit towards more responsibility (Teigeler 2015). And this seems to have happened in view of the growing number of Green voters and the committed climate demonstrations by young people. Consciousness has changed and a small group of consumption-happy 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.

So I ask specifically: Is there anyone in our ranks who believes that we would only speak about climate change and sustainable living with such vehemence today through non-aestheticized information, through 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 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 additions to and alternatives to linguistic expression; like linguistic expression, they determine proximity and distance. This proximity or distance generated not only affects our sociality, but also enables or prevents us from gaining new approaches to major sociopolitical issues.

This text therefore argues for looking at the semiotics of things that have not yet undergone a process of aestheticization, because through them we can determine which goals and moral-ethical world views a performance-oriented (post-)capitalist society is pursuing. The ugly, the non-aesthetic, is thus just as informative as the beautiful. It provides insights into collective values. But what happens when the non-aesthetic or de-aesthetic remains hidden because it does not seem suitable to be made "anti-aesthetically" productive? Then, according to my thesis, the ugly can prevent us from dealing with major issues such as illness, old age and death in our everyday lives because it makes identification and closeness impossible. This can result in relevant social questions about the future not being addressed or in very one-sided and monosyllabic answers to these questions.

Because when we look at illness and dying, what has been outlined above comes to pass. I therefore ask what images come to mind when we hear terms such as need for care and end of life. Shriveled, praying hands or weak hands covered in plaster, latex gloves, imitation wood veneer nursing beds, patterned nursing shirts, transparent rubber hoses and a sea of ​​chrome, steel grey, disinfectant blue, lab coat white and surgical green may appear before our inner eye. Objects such as these, along with their surfaces and symbols, are on the one hand linked to a habitualized body knowledge of illness, suffering and the worry of loss of autonomy, but on the other hand they also represent anonymity and the standardization process of economized medicine, which increasingly turns us into a de-individualized body that is efficiently processed in health factories. One could also say, in a nasty way, that these aesthetics are appropriate in a perverse sense because they "sell" illness and mortality or "inability to perform" in an ugly way. If we look at the dreary images that symbolize the need for care, it is reasonable to assume that social repression and taboos are partly to blame for precisely these imagery. I am investigating this social and 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 make use of it, similar to what the LOHAS did a few years ago, would "mortality and illness" and "eco-being" possibly become more socially acceptable again? A small international group of "death positive thinkers" is currently initiating these processes. I personally assume that this will not be possible without a "redesign of death worlds". Because, whether we like it or not, it is to a large extent 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 Verlagsgesellschaft. Konstanz

The KarmaKonsum LOHAS Manifesto (2007): We live LOHAS – the Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability. Retrieved on July 15, 2014, from https://www.karmakonsum.de/lohas_-_lifestyle-of-health-and-sustainability/

Teigeler, M. (2015): Greenmarketing. 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.