Watch this. What are the priests doing? Catholic Litmus Test If you are Catholic, then I hope for the sake of your soul you said he is welcoming Christ bodily into the world. If you didn’t you aren’t looking too […]
According to the pop-psychologist-pseudo-science writer Malcolm Gladwell in his magnum lite-opus, the Tipping Point we as a species need risk takers. Individuals who are willing to put it all on the line in pursuit of a goal will, if they […]
A while ago, the Inquisition pondered the nature of intelligence, and whether a certain outlook or attendant mental abilities are guides to or from happiness. This has been obliquely in the news of late…
Its odd. Most graveyards in Connemara appear to be near water, if not actually right on the coast. Why? West Galway, or Connemara, has a lot of unused space. Admittedly, much of the land Connemara is industrially and agriculturally useless, […]
A talk given by The Inquisition at Defuse, on Wednesday 7th November 2012, as part of Designweek in Dublin, Ireland
Nürnburg got ripped to shreds by Bomber Harris’ boys. By how much appears to be open to debate.
The preface to HLA Hart’s publication of his 1961 lecture series on the meeting of law and morality is as prevalent today as it ever was.
There are people out there who pretend to like coffee. Coffee Haters – you have been warned.
False flag, covert ops by Americans against Americans? Sounds crazy, and so it was deemed.
55 years ago Roland Barthes considered the importance of plastic and what it meant, as a substance and a symbol.
Marriage is thought by many to be a fixed rite, one which is immovable and inflexible. The truth is that it has not always seemed so…
The world was shocked when a victim of torture started blinking morse. The story of a US aviator captured in Vietnam.
Roland Barthes’ Mythologies was first published in 1957, and was first translated to English in 1970. In it he recounts, and theorises on, a visit he paid to an exhibition of plastic.
…its previous position as an adjective describing flexibility, to its current position of a noun described by its own everydayness…
Barthes was writing at a time when plastics were still being hailed as a true collection of wonderstuffs. Now, of course we see it for what it is at worst a biological and environmental hazard and at best a description of ubiquity and cheapness (see the original Ford Ka for a seminal instruction in “plasticky”).
As he wrote, plastic was still moving from its previous position as an adjective describing flexibility, to its current position of a noun described by its own everydayness. 50 years ago dashboards in cars were still wooden, milk still came in glass bottles and not oddly laminated pulp board, money was still almost always paper and metal.
But designers were pushing the boundaries. Organic forms were entering our lives in ways they never had before. Chairs were available that were like swivelling eggs you disappeared into(Particularly the Alpha Stereo chiar). Housewives had wipeable table cloths! Phones hung from the wall, ready to be picked up, light in your hands and smooth to the touch. Music spread globally on etched discs of black vinyl. Plastic was offering new possibilities, as it always has done.
Of course, Barthes was only concerned with the connotations of plastics, their democratisation of complex constructions and their possibilities of further. He is not concerned at all, in this context at least, with their reality. He is unaware of what their ecological legacy would be.
Barthes was enthralled by the substance, calling it “the stuff of alchemy”.
He was also oddly prophetic, although not in the manner intended – “a miraculous substance; a miracle is always a sudden transformation of nature”. Plastic, as we now know has gravely affected nature.
More than this, plastic in the eyes of this leading intellectual of the time, lifts us above nature. No longer do we have to rely on the materials nature provides us with, and their inherent limitations. These transformations give “man the measure of his power, and since the very itinerary of plastic gives him the euphoria of a prestigious free-wheeling through Nature.”
Interestingly though, old materials still hold true in much engineering. In transportation it is hard to find a plastic wheel. They are all metal. But our kids’ toys have plastic wheels. How will this look when we are excavated, 5000 years into the future?
Barthes refected on how plastic had lost its lustre even then. Its name, Barthes noted, had already gone from meaning flexible to meaning uncompromisingly cheap, its qualities seen somewhere between the effusiveness of rubber and the sheer strength of metal. Plastic, he said, was disgraced.
It is a bourgeois representation of finer, more graceful materials. It is the most recent in a long line of materials replicating their finer, rarer, more expensive cousins – diamonds and cubic zirconia, gold and brass or cotton and virtually any other textile. We want to appear fine and opulent, but at a price. So we see mp3 players in high gloss black like antique Japanese lacquered boxes, or laminated furniture like rare woods. We see synthetic upper faux-leather shoes and fake fur coats. The list goes on.
But he concludes that it is exactly this commonplaceness that makes it so special. It is so versatile it is practically unseen.
Mythologies, Roland Barthes, Vintage, Ed. 2000
This article was posted by Ronan McDonnell on
Friday, June 29th, 2012 at
It is archived in Art, Culture, Design, History, Media, Museum, Science, Semiotics and tagged Art, Culture, Environment, plastic, Science.
Comments are closed.