Design in motion, and Workshops at the ECAL

Interview, Ronan Bouroullec and Fabrice Monier
Saint-Denis, France, 2003.

Fabrice Monier: Seen any good films lately?

Ronan Bouroullec: I'm rather demanding in terms of what I think makes a good film, and so I haven't been to the cinema for a while now because I'm always rather disappointed. The last film that I saw was rather light-hearted and interesting – an Argentine film called "Tan de repente". It's the story of two Argentine lesbians who meet a girl and take her hostage. Jim Jarmusch's "Stranger than Paradise"… this film was like one of the first black and white films. A sensitive road movie.

FM: Play any good video games lately?

RB: I don't use computers at all except to send e-mails and electronic media. I work together with Erouane, who has always loved that sort of thing. It works for us, the fact that we don't have the same cultural approach at all on the whole Internet thing, and it's interesting just the way it is. It just doesn't seem vital to me to have ideas and then to bring them to life using computers.

I'm just happy creating my designs with a pencil, with a bit of color from time to time. That's the only thing I know how to do and it's enough for me, to put ideas down on A4 paper and later reflect on them – nothing more.

FM: What do these two aesthetics have in common?

RB: These two aesthetics interest me. I'm not against using computers – our job is to confront problems faced by producers. Using digital media just doesn't seem fundamental. For me personally, it's not indispensable – I can use computers as a means of validating my ideas, but nothing more. That may seem like an anachronistic approach, but at the same time, we have enough distance from our work not to let ourselves get carried away, let ourselves be guided in our work by computers, which I think sometimes can be the case.

I'm convinced that computers are not used to best advantage. It's true that a certain number of working drawings and plans can only be done by computer. But that could mislead someone into taking on a certain aesthetic, lead someone in a certain number of directions that are not really mastered and that are truly driven by the computers themselves, and I think that's dangerous. We conceptualize things that become objects with physical and changeable dimensions; we have a lot of distance from our work. Of course, with respect to images and multimedia offerings, that's a whole different story.

In terms of aesthetic sources of inspiration, we've often had a terse response, which is to say that we've never had an idea from a film that led us to design a chair, book or video game, that then led us to confront such and such a situation in order to create another design. We're effectively in an environment, a culture in which we're evolving, so of course that has a direct effect on what we do. But we don't speak much about direct references or borrowing from such and such a source. We're a bit distant from these computer tools and cultural transformations.

FM: What does the word elegance mean to you?

RB: No idea on that one. I think that a good project, a good object always represents a rather complex alchemy – a bit like fine cuisine. Some extremely heavy meals can be absolutely delicious, but so too are much lighter dishes. Once again, design is alchemy with a purpose, good proportions and a bit of humor – all in measured doses. Delicious dishes are often special; the reasons that we may like an object are not only linked to elegance but also to the memory it provokes, the quality of the object and its usefulness. If my grandmother gives me three or four dishes, they might not be extraordinary but they'll surely be the ones I adore.

FM: What were your most recent aesthetic discoveries?

RB: I don't know, maybe the idea of design's link to context – jewelry for a certain name brand, stereos in an office, or when one enters a ceramics studio that is as big as a kitchen. Every time, the approach must be contextual. The work must be linked and built in that spirit. We can't describe our idea of an aesthetic universe, or our references in that universe.

FM: What is European design?

RB: Good question. We've been asking ourselves for a while whether French design exists. For me, the asnwer is no – all the trends are sort of transnational these days, and one's work can seem to resemble the work of an American, English or Japanese designer simply because you had a similar contextual or aesthetic approach. It's the same idea as with French writing on design – I don't see any sort of French or European writing style, even though designers ended up setting up shop in Europe and after them, the guys who design objects showed up. Designers are everywhere around the world, and the idea of making drawings or small objects is as old as the hills. The craft always existed.

FM: Do you think that computerization and the Internet are transforming our design culture?

RB: I have no idea. If that were the case, so much the better. If not, it's no big deal.

FM: What is the most recent cutting-edge technology you've used in your designs?

RB: Technological advances may happen, but it's not the sole motivating factor for us. An object that is made with current technologies is not intrinsically interesting. There are objects made using completely traditional technologies that are extraordinary and incredibly modern. Some use new plastics and new technological approaches but in and of themselves are totally ridiculous, as the new technologies are used just for the sake of using them, or are used ill-advisedly. The use of new technologies seems justified in certain cases in order to incorporate a new material, but it's not the magic formula for success. There is often a lack of understanding when something new and different is created after something that is purely accurate.

Accuracy comes through the use of a new hinge or a new material that is incredibly flexible, but an object can only truly be incredible and effective if it's used properly, and not just for the sake of saying 'Oh, this is new, he's using a new material.' In lots of cases, what's created is not interesting.

FM: How do you work to help guide students in the development of their own design style?

RB: Actually, teaching is a bit of a problem. I was not a very good student; I was actually against school for a while because I had such a rough time with it. I've never seen a method of teaching that enabled students to take a step back from what they're doing. The goal of teaching is to be able to help each student figure out what makes them tick, what makes them special. The goal is not to force students to adopt the teacher's point of view. This is important – obviously, teachers are guided by their own points of view when they're judging the work of others, or helping other learn, but at the same time, one always had to put that in perspective and to understand how to see what is unique about each student.

Sometimes I end up defending students who have two different points of view on a question that I've asked – neither of which is my point of view, but which seems to me to be a viable approach, intellectually speaking, and seems to best represent what the students themselves stand for. It's always really complicated. I always really resented my teachers, and maybe my students resent me now. We never get to any kind of absolute truth. But for me, the important thing is to take a step back, to be able to listen well enough and understand a point of view that is totally different from one's own, and to know how to guide a student despite the difference in opinions. What's most interesting is developing an approach that will allow in the future for the development of a talent that is unique, and not just a good worker that designs pretty chairs – because that's not enough.

One has to try to ensure that each student succeeds – ok, maybe we don't meet 30 exceptional students every year, but still – if there are three or four that succeed in developing a singular approach, one that isn't born of trends or the latest styles in magazines, that is a huge success. But it doesn't always happen.

To teach is more about getting the students to either accept or question what they see around them, what is written and what is not. It's making sure that students are able to judge for themselves, that they don't allow themselves to be manipulated by the images around them, which leave some of them in a fog. We're often so bombarded with images that we try to sift through them and to develop a point of view, but that's not always easy.

FM: How do you play an active role, even a leading role, in the development of new design concepts, and do you think you can create a new school of design thought?

RB: I don't think I'm creating a new design culture. If that were the case, so much the better. If not, it's no big deal.

FM: Would you characterize design as a symbolic exchange of views? Giving designs to others is giving something symbolically valuable.

RB: That depends on the objects designed – sometimes yes and sometimes no. The symbolic value of an object doesn't seem that important to me.

FM: How do you imagine designers in the future?

RB: This is a profession that is expanding rapidly, but at the same time it's a fragile profession because there is very little in terms of theoretical or critical points of view about this profession, and that's dangerous. Every discipline, from cinema to music to painting to other forms of art, develops its own critical and theoretical dimension – with people who theorize, write reviews, think and have opinions about their own thoughts. It can be extremely unclear in some cases, but that's not a big deal. Every discipline has the power to criticize those on the inside. Design has very little of that and I think that's very dangerous. But at the same time, the design approach is a development that is becoming more and more significant.

We are more and more in demand all over the place, both for extremely industrial-type jobs and for designing watches, electronics goods and amazing jewelry for old-time name brands. The specter of design is looming larger and larger in places where before, only professionals were asked to intervene, like in watchmaking, car making and jewelry making. What's interesting today is that rather important labels are realizing how much they need to call upon outside talent.

We're never that comfortable when people call on us, because we're not part of that corporate culture. Two years ago, VITRA asked us to think about designing its offices. We had never worked like that; we had always worked with a team of three or four, and now they wanted us to create a working space for use by 100 or 200 people. Or even 300 people. But it's interesting not to be part of that culture, because we come in totally innocent with a sufficient distance from the situation that allows us to adopt a rather radical approach.

For VITRA, we made films, with strange yet symbolic flashes of images across the screen, but we didn't really know the software's capacities.

FM: Do you have intuition?

RB: We don't really like people who work instinctively. When you take a close look at certain issues and try to be as precise as possible, success doesn't come with intuition, but with a lot of hard work – which allows you to smooth out the rough edges. We often speak about writing when we speak about work for various reasons. A journalist from France Culture once told us that your work resembles a haiku, a Japanese poem written with very few but meaningful words. That is, by being able to distill something down to its essence in a few words, ideas take flight. I think that our work is linked to this concept – it's not a wordy profession, there are no fireworks. It's rather precise work that is as focused as possible, resulting in the production of a satisfying object by focusing on the essential and cutting out the superfluous.






Ronan Bouroullec teaches design at the ECAL in Lausanne.
For more information on ECAL 2003, please refer to the official
website at www.ecal.ch .

This interview was conducted by Fabrice Monier, courtesy EUPHRATE Paris translated from the French by Susan Stumme.