4. Two kinds of universality・・・Universality as a method and universality as an idea
There is a certain design concept that has been continuously discussed over the past 40 to 50 years. It has been labeled with many different names at different times. For example: staple (teiban), standard, non-design, archetype (genkei), ordinary (futsu), universal design, and normal.
While seeking designs exhibiting sensitivity and individuality, all of these labels simultaneously pointed to a kind of design holy grail of products that would “never change,” that would be “wanted by everyone,” and that would “exist at a level which transcended human aims and design intent.”
Staple refers to a strong selling universal-type product that a company converges on while selling a large volume of items, while standard can be seen as a concept applying in instances where a company is making a conscious effort to give birth to a staple. In its heyday, the idea of non-design was much discussed. Expressing an inherent aversion to design individuality, non-design stressed that what people really want is design that does not call attention to itself as design. It seems to me that this idea is related to the Japanese aesthetic sensibilities that I have written about previously. In short, I think that behind non-design is a sensibility that is born of a kind of nature worship and feelings of harmony with nature, a sensibility embodied in the view that things are best left as they are.
If we assume that an archetype is revealed when something is in its natural state, the idea comes close to non-design. However, archetypal forms represent the essential nature of something so the idea is also close to that of universal. Whether we use the label ordinary, archetype, or non-design, this is a concept born of an almost religious search for something universal. Naoto Fukasawa describes the designs that he is searching for as “ordinary and a little different.” The term “super normal” is just another way of saying the same thing. Fukasawa also makes the point that “individuality is not needed” in design.
The design ideas we see here represent, I would think, a “universal something” being sought with much bitter effort.
There are a couple factors serving as background for this long history, one being the search for “something that escapes the standards imposed by mass production and becomes truly one’s own,” and the other being “the expectation for a universal presence of things, an expectation that is a particular characteristic of the Japanese people, who carry an awareness of universality as an idea.” The former represents universality as a method, and it is realized, albeit imperfectly, in customization, universal design, low-volume production of diverse products, and handicraft industries. The latter we can, as above, refer to as universality as an idea, and it is pursued from a philosophical perspective, becoming visible in places where even individualistic design is not rejected.
What is needed today is a comprehensive answer incorporating both these two universalities.
