Archives

Eco-modernism: A Manifesto For Sustainable Design

By Peter Danko

Ever since the dawn of the industrial revolution, design movements have been driven either by social change or by new technology. Design has to be sustainable environmentally and aesthetically. Green furniture has to be beautiful; sustainability is an integral part of good design, says Peter Danko, award-winning furniture designer and maker, at a conference held during NeoCon East 2008 in Baltimore.

Eco-modernism teaches an aesthetic approach to sustainability. It recognises that our ability to design with less energy and resources can surpass our willingness to accept those designs. Patterns in the history of design indicates our present approach to “green design” is too often about branding than substance. That without an aesthetic approach to sustainability, green design as we know it today will soon hit a wall. Eco-modernism is about getting over this wall.

True sustainability lies with our willingness to let go of design traditions that are not sustainable. It lies with our willingness to accept ideas and technologies, which by their very nature, are sustainable. This essay explains why it is so crucial to pursue an Eco-modern aesthetic. It then follows the work of artists, architects and designers whose creative ideas have been building toward a sustainable aesthetic for over a century. It teaches an approach to design that will lead to products of every type whose sustainability is apparent. A basic understanding of the principles behind this approach to design will make these products obviously sustainable.

I have been applying these principles in my furniture and cabinetry designs for some time now. They are the future of design. These principles can take us over that wall to a world both wholly different yet familiar. Eco-modernism is about attracting people through beauty so they will want to live in a sustainable world. We have recently been awakened to a world competing for resources in terms of energy and food. These competitive forces are also putting a strain on the supply of all resources. Here is one example: in 2006 the US imported US$937 million worth of hardwood plywood from China and US$4.2 billion worth of hardwood furniture. “World demand imposes extreme pressure to harvest timber worldwide, and this pressure creates a market for illegally harvested wood. Illegal logging on public lands annually costs governments in poor countries more than US$10 billion annually in lost assets and revenues. The World Bank estimates a billion people make their livelihood in forests. As forests are degraded, and as logging proceeds, soil washes away and communities suffer from flooding, forest fires and loss of game. Endangered forests are a bulwark against global warming, capturing carbon dioxide that would otherwise contribute to heating the planet. Natural forests in Indonesia and Burma will be exhausted within a decade.” (Washington Post, 2007) The American Forest and Paper Association estimates that up to 10 percent of global timber production may be of suspicious origin. (Wood and Wood Products, 2007).

So how do we reduce our reliance on timber? We can favour furniture and cabinetry designs that use less wood. A move in this direction would have a significant impact toward preserving endangered forests. This thinking applies to everything we use. It is what Eco-modernism is about.

The idea for Eco-modernism began when I attended the “Green Build 2003” conference in Pittsburgh. For all the excitement and effort put into the conference, there was no tangible progress toward sustainability in an aesthetic sense. This seemed odd as the majority of the participants were visual people: architects, planners, and interior designers.

I remember everyone talking about the building we were in, the new David L. Lawrence convention centre and how it was rated LEED Gold. Built to the exacting standards of sustainability as set by the USGBC (United States Green Building Council) and the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Initiatives. The building is indeed beautiful, though sadly by my way of thinking, there was nothing to identify it as special or different from any other building.

The idea of sustainability is a major turning point for human civilisation. It is too important for it to be hidden in an object’s design. At the time I had no idea what would constitute a sustainable “look” or “style”. I was thinking something along the lines of a survey course in architecture where building styles progress from one to another; Federal, Greek Revival, Second Empire, Eastlake, Arts and Crafts, then maybe Eco-modern? Unfortunately, whatever distinguishing style or attribute that was agreed upon to designate “sustainable design” could easily be mimicked by a less scrupulous developer or manufacturer.

This is why the USGBC does not want aesthetics to be associated with green design. Another impression I took away from the Green Build conference was how tedious it was to follow the LEED standards. A designer is saddled with the responsibility of figuring out whether or not each product they specify complies with LEED standards. They must somehow validate that its chemistry and the processes by which it is made are truly green.

Architects and designers are visual people, creative types in pursuit of beauty, organisation and harmony. Though their attentiveness to these details is admirable, they did not choose their profession to be ingredient and process auditors. To confuse matters, many of the “green” claims manufacturers make, though largely true, are misleading in that there is little clue to the degree of sustainability accomplished. So there is not really a way to truly compare products. It is even hard to understand and compare products that are “certified” by third party organisations. Later it occurred to me that whatever distinguishing style or aesthetic sensibility an Eco-modernist design must possess, it would have to be inherently, obviously sustainable. So much so that any unscrupulous manufacturer who tried to copy it would have to incorporate its sustainable characteristics. If this was the case then designers would not have to bother so much with the arduous process of confirming its sustainability.

It would remove confusion, and the world would be better off. A brief look at design history makes it clear that sustainable design without a distinguishing style or characteristic is not sustainable design at all. Rather, it is design in a sustained state of denial. Here‘s why: Every significant social or technological change that has occurred since the beginning of the industrial revolution has been reflected in both product design and architecture. The shifts in our choices of how an object is designed are somehow an externalised expression of a shift in our values and attitudes.

For example, the ideas of Pre-Raphaelite thinking, which spawned the British Arts and Crafts movement, signified a shift in reaction to the social upheaval caused by the industrial revolution. Art Nouveau was inspired by the new worlds of form revealed by the invention of the microscope and the beginning of undersea exploration. It acknowledged the importance of these new technologies and their associated sciences. Opening up trade with Japan brought Asian design to the public’s attention; the shift here reflected openness to the ideas of another culture. It inspired both the American and late British Arts and crafts movements. The use of steel as an inexpensive new material created a quantum jump in the decorative arts and architecture beginning at the Bauhaus School.

The shift in thinking at the Bauhaus was the polar opposite of Pre-Raphaelite thinking. Pre-Raphaelite design romanced the simpler times before the industrial revolution because it reflected a more stable social order. Bauhaus thinking embraced technology and the potential of industry to improve people’s lives. Mid-Century modernism celebrated technology, the atom, and our triumph over World War II and the great depression. It is clear then that our furnishings reflect our personal beliefs and social attitudes.

So how come sustainability is not reflected in the aesthetics of the objects we buy? The answer to this question is that we lack a definitive vision.

About the Author

Peter Danko has been designing and building furniture since 1972. He graduated with Bachelor of Art degree, with a major in Fine Art and Art History, from the University of Maryland in 1971. He won the Best of NeoCon Silver Award for chair design in 1998; IDSA, Certificate of Achievement for the Everychair Series in 1983; and the National Endowment for the Arts Design Fellowship in 1980 and 1975. Danko is also awarded several mechanical and design patents. His works have been curated by numerous museums in the US and Europe since 1978. Some of which include MOMA and the Smithsonian.

* The second instalment of this article will appear in the next issue of Office & Contract International. In it, Peter Danko will addresses questions such as: How does the idea of obvious sustainability fit into mainstream manufacturing and product design? What properties must it possess to be inherently and obviously sustainable? He will describe in detail the characteristics of Eco-modernism and particularly, how they can be applied in furniture.