Latest / Soft Ratios Research / Unlearning what you know (on ex-formation)

Transcript

Unlearning what you know (on ex-formation) · Soft Ratios Research

• 0:11
  Figure: This is Soft Ratios Radio.
• 0:13
  Ground: The voices here are synthetic [pause] nobody's performing,
• 0:18
  Figure: so the only thing in the room is the thinking. [pause] The subject is a designer who says his job isn't to explain things
• 0:27
  Ground: it's to make them strange again.
• 0:29
  Figure: Start with the thing everyone agrees on, because almost nobody argues with it. Good design informs. It tells you where to grip the knife, which button does what, which door pushes and which one pulls. Clarity is the whole job. You take something confusing and turn it clear. [pause] That's the water we swim in. Every brief you've ever seen assumes it. How do we say this more clearly. How do we cut the friction. How do we make sure the message lands.
• 0:56
  Ground: And it sounds unarguable. Who's going to stand up for confusion.
• 1:00
  Figure: Right. So here's Kenya Hara, who's spent a career inside that assumption — he's been the art director of MUJI since 2001 — turning it exactly inside out. He coins a word for the opposite of information. He calls it ex-formation.
• 1:15
  Ground: Ex-formation.
• 1:17
  Figure: In-formation makes the world known. You structure it, you sort it, you deliver the knowledge inward. Ex-formation does the reverse. It pushes the knowledge back out. It takes something you're sure you understand and hands it back to mystery. His own words — he wants to think of information not in terms of making known, but in terms of making unknown.
• 1:40
  Ground: So the designer's job isn't to answer. It's to un-answer.
• 1:45
  Figure: That's the claim. And he doesn't hedge it. He says producing something new from scratch is creative — but making the known unknown is also an act of creation. And maybe, he says, the second one is closer to what design actually is.
• 2:00
  Ground: That should feel like a stunt. A designer being contrary for the applause. But it doesn't, quite. There's a reason it doesn't land as a party trick, and I want to know what that reason is.
• 2:15
  Figure: Then let's not take his word for it. He tested it. Ten years, one workshop a year, at Musashino Art University — fourteen, fifteen students at a time. Every year they picked one utterly familiar thing and tried to make it unknown.
• 2:30
  Ground: Familiar like what.
• 2:31
  Figure: A river. Wrinkles. Air. Nakedness. Half-ripeness — the Japanese word is hanjuku, soft-boiled, the egg that isn't finished. Pairs of things. And at the end, Tokyo itself. The whole city.
• 2:49
  Ground: Air. How would that even work — making air unknown. You can't even see the thing to begin with.
• 2:57
  Figure: That's the point. That year they came back with pieces called Holes, and Peering at Air, and — my favorite as a phrase — If Air Were Orange Grains. They kept trying to give it a body. Something to weigh, something to hold.
• 3:11
  Ground: Start with the river, though. That's the one I keep circling. Tell me what they actually did.
• 3:17
  Figure: The first workshop, 2004. The Shimanto River. Most people in Japan know its name — it's famous, it's clean, it's the one you're supposed to revere. And precisely because everyone knows it, nobody sees it. Three students — Inaba, Matsushita, Mori — took photographs of the river and swapped out the water. Every curve, every meander, kept exactly. But the surface is now asphalt. A road.
• 3:43
  Ground: And suddenly you can see it.
• 3:46
  Figure: Hara said it carries the river's size and shape more vividly than an ordinary photograph ever could. You get the undulation of it, the bends, as if you had the wheel in your hands and you were driving the thing.
• 3:57
  Ground: That's the whole trick in one image, isn't it. You've looked at a thousand rivers and a thousand roads. But you've never looked at a river with a road's attention. The road makes you drive it. And driving it, you finally notice the shape the water was always making.
• 4:16
  Figure: Another team in the same workshop laid footprint-sized cutouts along the riverbed. Stepping on the Shimanto River. Human-scale marks on an inhuman landscape, so your body has somewhere to stand in it.
• 4:29
  Ground: So the method isn't decoration. It's not making the river prettier. It's peeling off the film. The scale that's built up on your eye just from having seen the word 'river' too many times.
• 4:41
  Figure: He uses exactly that image. When we say the scales fall from the eyes — he means we're freed from our preconceptions and we can feel the reality of the world again. Ex-formation is the removing of the scales.
• 4:57
  Ground: Here's what I don't trust yet. This is beautiful when it's a student project on a gallery wall. A river as a road, you stand there, you feel the click. But he runs a commercial brand. Thousands of products. People need to know which is the shampoo. Where does un-knowing survive contact with a shop?
• 5:18
  Figure: That's the real test, and he walks straight into it. Take the knife. He compares two. A Henckels kitchen knife has a molded handle — the grip is sculpted, it tells your hand exactly where to go. That handle is information. It instructs you.
• 5:35
  Ground: And the other one.
• 5:36
  Figure: A Japanese yanagiba. A plain wooden handle. Straight, unsculpted. It doesn't tell you where to hold it, so you can hold it any way you want. And Hara's line is — that simple plain handle receives all the incredible technique of the sushi chef. The ergonomic handle is information. The plain handle is ex-formation.
• 5:58
  Ground: So the empty handle holds more skill than the clever one. [pause] That's it. That's the thing that stops it being a stunt. The molded grip has already decided who you are — an average hand, an average grip. It's finished you before you arrive. The plain one leaves the space open. It assumes you might be a master.
• 6:20
  Figure: And that's the whole MUJI philosophy squeezed into a piece of wood. They label a table 'oak table,' not 'coffee table.' Because the moment you say coffee table, you've told it what to be, and told the owner what they are. Say oak table, and a hundred different people can look at it and think — this suits my life.
• 6:40
  Ground: He has a phrase for that feeling.
• 6:42
  Figure: 'This will do.' Not resignation. Not settling. Quiet recognition that something fits without imposing. He says the essence of MUJI is making one simple table about which many different people can say, this suits my lifestyle.
• 6:58
  Ground: Now I want to push on the grand version of this, because there's one that's almost too clean. The advertising.
• 7:06
  Figure: The Horizon campaign. 2003. He'd been art director two years. They shot in the Uyuni salt flat in Bolivia and the prairies of Mongolia. A tiny human figure, an enormous empty landscape. No product. No slogan. Nothing MUJI in the frame at all.
• 7:25
  Ground: An ad for a store that shows you none of the store.
• 7:28
  Figure: His reasoning is pure ex-formation. Rather than carry a message, he wanted to carry the presence of MUJI — an image that lets you freely imagine what you feel MUJI to be. And he measures success backwards. Not by how clearly the message lands. By how many different images the picture can accept.
• 7:47
  Ground: Which is the emptiest possible definition of a good ad. And maybe the truest. [pause] An empty vessel can receive anything. A full one can't receive a thing. He keeps coming back to that, doesn't he. The vessel.
• 8:02
  Figure: It's the deep structure under all of it. In his book Designing Design he says every designed thing descends from one of two archetypes. The stick — assertive, directive, pointing at you. And the vessel — receptive, containing, open. Ex-formation is entirely on the vessel's side. It doesn't point. It holds a space and waits.
• 8:26
  Ground: And that waiting has a name older than any of this. Say it, because this is the part I actually want to test — whether the mysticism holds up or whether it's a nice story he tells.
• 8:40
  Figure: The word is kū. Emptiness. He draws it from Zen and from Shinto. And in Shinto there's this practice — himorogi — where you set up an empty structure, deliberately, so that a kami, a god, one of the forces of nature, might choose to enter it. His line: there's no way to make an appointment with the gods. All you can do is create the conditions of emptiness, and they might come to fill it.
• 9:06
  Ground: That's lovely. It's also exactly the kind of thing that could be pure decoration. A designer borrowing incense to make product photography sound sacred. So — is the lineage real, or is it a vibe.
• 9:20
  Figure: It's real, and it's older and stranger than he usually lets on. Kū, the character 空, is the Japanese descendant of the Chinese kong. That comes from the Sanskrit śūnyatā. And śūnyatā isn't a mood word. It's built off shunya — which is also the word for zero. Emptiness and the number zero are the same root. It's literally zero-ness.
• 9:45
  Ground: The same word as zero.
• 9:48
  Figure: The philosophy got its full form from Nāgārjuna, a second-century Indian thinker. His school is sometimes just called the Doctrine That All Is Void. Then it crosses into China through a translator named Kumārajīva, who lived roughly 344 to 413, rendering Nāgārjuna into Chinese. And it lands, centuries on, in the Heart Sutra — two hundred and sixty characters, and it holds the line everyone half-knows: form is emptiness, emptiness is form.
• 10:22
  Ground: So when Hara says emptiness, there's a thousand-year rope behind the word. It's not that he's being vague. He's standing on something that was argued out very precisely, a long time ago.
• 10:34
  Figure: And here's the part I have to keep honest, because it's the exact place these things go soft. Śūnyatā never meant nothingness. It's not the void, not absence, not nihilism. It means the absence of one specific illusion — the illusion that things have a fixed, independent, standalone existence. Empty of a false kind of solidity. Not empty of everything.
• 11:00
  Ground: That's a knife-edge distinction, and it matters. Because 'make it empty' as a design slogan slides so easily into 'make it blank.' Strip it down, minimize, white walls, done.
• 11:16
  Figure: And Hara refuses that reading flat out. He says this is not Western minimalism. Bauhaus, less-is-more — that's rational reduction. The shortest line between material and function. Cut until nothing's left to cut. His emptiness does the opposite thing. It doesn't reduce toward function. It opens toward freedom.
• 11:36
  Ground: Back to the two handles. Minimalism gives you a very clean, very finished object. Emptiness gives you an unfinished one on purpose — because the unfinished part is the room left for you. Minimalism subtracts to arrive. Emptiness subtracts to invite.
• 11:56
  Figure: He's got a historical claim stacked on top of it, too. He traces the whole sensibility to after the Ōnin War — Kyoto devastated, 1467 to 1477 — and the culture that came after, under the shogun Ashikaga Yoshimasa. That's where you get the tea ceremony, ikebana, Noh, the dry rock gardens, wabi-sabi. A culture that found beauty in nothing-ness, in emptiness, even in decay. His provocation: Japan embraced simplicity in design three hundred years before the West got around to it.
• 12:32
  Ground: Let me pull the thread back to the middle, because we've come a long way from a river with a road painted on it. The question underneath all of this is really one question. If knowing something makes you stop seeing it — then what is a designer actually for?
• 12:49
  Figure: And his answer, stated plainly, is almost aggressive. He thinks we've crossed a threshold. The sheer volume of available information has passed some critical mass. People, he says, are constantly replacing the unknown world with things already known and accepted. Getting to know something used to be a thrill. Now the flood is so total that knowledge has stopped working as something that drives thought. It just fills you up.
• 13:16
  Ground: So adding more information isn't help anymore. It's the disease. And the cure isn't a better fact. It's an encounter with something you can't immediately file away.
• 13:28
  Figure: There's a Western twin to this, though nobody's proven Hara ever reached for it. Nineteen-seventeen, a Russian critic named Viktor Shklovsky writes an essay — Art as Technique. He coins ostranenie. Making strange. Defamiliarization. His argument: habit devours everything. The purpose of art is to make the stone stony again — to give you the sensation of a thing as perceived, not as already known. To make forms difficult, to slow perception down, because the perceiving is the point.
• 14:02
  Ground: That's the same knife. Shklovsky wants to break the automatism of reading. Hara wants to break the automatism of just — living in a room, walking past a river, wearing your own city.
• 14:17
  Figure: And I have to flag it: nothing in the record connects the two directly. It's a rhyme, not a citation. Hara comes at it from Zen and the tea room, Shklovsky from literary formalism. But two people, a century and a continent apart, land on the identical instrument. Which tells you the instrument is real — it's not one man's idiosyncrasy.
• 14:38
  Ground: Now do the thing you keep threatening to do. The cold part. Because this all sounds gorgeous and I've half-fallen for it. Does it actually work — did any of it move the world, or just the room it was shown in?
• 14:53
  Figure: Two places to be careful. First, the money. People love to tell the MUJI story as proof: Hara arrives, emptiness sells, look at the growth. And the growth is real. Forty products in the eighties. Over seven thousand by the end of the two-thousands. By 2018, more than four hundred stores in Japan and four hundred more across twenty-seven other countries. By last year, nearly fifteen hundred stores worldwide, and the parent company chasing a trillion yen in revenue.
• 15:23
  Ground: That's a lot of empty vessels.
• 15:25
  Figure: But — and this is the honest part — nothing actually ties those numbers to his philosophy. He won the Tokyo Art Directors grand prize for Horizon in 2003, that's documented. The revenue is a whole corporation over decades. You cannot draw a clean line from an empty salt-flat photograph to a store count. Anyone who tells you emptiness caused the growth is selling you the story, not the evidence.
• 15:50
  Ground: I actually like that it doesn't close. It'd be too neat if the un-knowing philosophy had a tidy profit-and-loss proof. The whole idea is against tidy proofs.
• 16:01
  Figure: And the second cold place is sharper. Before ex-formation had a name, there was the RE-DESIGN exhibition, 2000. Thirty-two leading creators asked to redesign the most mundane objects. Shigeru Ban made a toilet paper roll with a square core — so it resists as it unrolls, that little kata-kata-kata, so you use less. Naoto Fukasawa made tea bags with a ring that changes color when the tea's steeped right. Kengo Kuma, a cockroach trap built like architecture. Kaoru Mende, matches made from real twigs, so the twig gets one last role before it goes back to the soil.
• 16:38
  Ground: Those are wonderful. I'd buy every one.
• 16:40
  Figure: You can't. As far as anyone can find, not one of them was ever manufactured, patented, or sold by its designer. There's a square-core patent floating around from 2005 — Swedish, a company called SCA — and it's got nothing to do with Ban's piece, and even that may never have been made.
• 17:00
  Ground: So the objects that were supposed to reveal the hidden design in everyday things — they never became everyday things.
• 17:08
  Figure: And Hara says that was the point. The exhibition wasn't meant to produce better products. It was meant to correct and renew our feeling about the essence of design — hidden inside objects so overly familiar we can no longer see them. The value was the seeing. Not the shipping.
• 17:25
  Ground: That's the fault line running through the whole thing, then. It's proven as a way of perceiving. It's completely unproven as a way of manufacturing. The book itself — what do people actually make of it?
• 17:38
  Figure: Respectfully secondary, even by his own crowd. Four-point-two on Goodreads, but only a hundred and twenty-six ratings. The consensus review says it plainly — this isn't the definitive statement of ex-formation, it's a collection of student projects exploring subjects with ex-formation-like strategies. His actual masterwork is Designing Design. The major Western design press didn't even bother to review Ex-formation. And nobody — this is the tell — nobody has ever built a repeatable method out of it. No framework. No toolkit. Ten years of proof that it works, and still no instructions for doing it.
• 18:16
  Ground: Which might be the most faithful outcome imaginable. You can't write a repeatable procedure for surprise. The second there's a step-by-step for making things unknown, they're known again. It'd eat itself.
• 18:31
  Figure: That's exactly the oxymoron one reviewer named. A definitive account of ex-formation is a contradiction in terms.
• 18:38
  Ground: Neither of us can feel whether this landed. If it did, a rating is the closest thing to telling us so. [pause] So strip the story away and see what's still standing. Forget the sacred vocabulary, forget whether it sold a single table. What's the residue.
• 18:57
  Figure: What survives is one uncomfortable observation, and it doesn't need a drop of Zen to hold. Knowing a thing and seeing a thing are not the same act. In fact they compete. The more completely you know something, the less you look at it. The name arrives and the noticing stops.
• 19:18
  Ground: Everyone's lived that. The face of the person you love, that you genuinely cannot see anymore because you've seen it ten thousand times. The street you walk daily and couldn't describe. The word you've said so often it goes to noise in your mouth.
• 19:34
  Figure: His culminating theme was Tokyo for exactly this. He said — we're familiar with Tokyo, and just to that extent, we've stopped being able to see it. And he noticed a small awakening every time he came home from traveling. The city rendered strange by having been away.
• 19:50
  Ground: And the student who nailed it — the camouflage one.
• 19:54
  Figure: Haruka Matsubara. Tokyo Camouflage. She built camouflage patterns for different neighborhoods — mixing the cinderblock walls, the alley calligraphy, the taxi license plates — into fabric you could wear. Camouflage that would let you vanish into a specific block of a specific city.
• 20:14
  Ground: Which says the quiet thing out loud. Familiarity is a kind of camouflage. The city disappears into you and you disappear into it, and the price of belonging somewhere completely is that you can no longer see it at all.
• 20:31
  Figure: So the residue isn't a technique. It's a warning about a cost. Every bit of mastery you gain over a thing, you pay for in attention to it. Competence and blindness arrive together, holding hands.
• 20:44
  Ground: And the one gift ex-formation leaves — even with no method, even unmade — is that the blindness isn't permanent. It can be lifted. A river becomes a road and the scales fall. You get the thing back, for a moment, as if you'd never known it.
• 21:06
  Figure: Hara has the quietest line for all of it, and it's the one I'd keep. Creativity, he says, is to discover a question that has never been asked. Not the answer. The question. In a world drowning in answers, the rare and valuable act is finding the thing worth being unsure about again.
• 21:25
  Ground: There's a version of Socrates in that — the man who said the only real wisdom is knowing you know nothing. Except Hara turns it from a confession into a tool. Not knowing isn't the embarrassing gap before knowledge. It's the fertile state you keep trying to get back to.
• 21:48
  Figure: Which loops us right back to where we started, and undoes it. We opened with the thing nobody argues with — that good design makes the world known. And the more carefully you look, the more it seems the deeper work is the opposite. Not adding to what you understand. Reopening what you'd stopped questioning.
• 22:06
  Ground: So here's where it leaves me. Everyone's got a thing they know so well they've gone blind to it — an object in the pocket, a face, a room, a word. Nothing exotic. The most familiar thing you own.
• 22:20
  Figure: And the question isn't whether you could describe it. You probably think you could.
• 22:25
  Ground: The question is whether you could still be surprised by it. Whether there's any road you could paint across its surface that would let you see its true shape for the first time — the shape it's been making all along, while you weren't looking.
• 22:39
  Ground: Pick the most familiar thing you own — the one you're certain you know completely. What would it take to make it strange enough to actually see again?