Examinar la utilidad del control

The problem of the model and series as presented above, has been addressed by a few scholars in a way that has had an echo in subsequent research in design semantics and semiotics. Two contributions stand out, the first of which to be referred to in the present context is Jean Baudrillard’s chapter on “Models and Series” in part four of his early critical work, Le système des objets published in 1968, English translation some 30 years later [1, pp. 137-155]. The chapter, as does the book in general, focusses on the market as the cultural matrix of late capitalism, that is to say the cultural function of consumption. In his discussion of the relationship between what he terms ‘model’ and the serial product he makes some interesting observations concerning the dialectics of uniqueness and multiplicity in serial objects. Only two brief comments should be made in this place on Baudrillard’s theorizing, remembering also that the book represents a round off to his occupation with design matters during the sixties, and that in 1970 he served as a member of the jury of the ‘Compasso d’oro’, the design prize presented by the Milanese department store, La Rinacenta, the same year he attended the legendary design congress in Aspen, Colorado as a keynote speaker.

First, it is worth noting that his distinction between model and series seems surprisingly insensitive to the reality of industrial design. This means that a ‘model’, as he defines it, always is superiour to a series; models have ‘style’, that is to say, a specific chronological and geographical identity, while series products have no such characteristics. In his view, models are originals, the series products are imitations or copies of the original. This also means that the serial product is of inferior cultural value in comparison to the model. For example, he exemplifies the differences between model and series by citing a prestigious car, the Facel-Vega, as opposed to a Citoën 2CV, or between haute couture in contradistinction to ready to wear garments. One of Baudrillard’s most puzzling ideas is expressed in his statement that at the level of “pure function … there cannot be any models …”. In general, he plays down the meaning of what he calls the “primary function” of objects. And as he suggests a process of “personalization” as part of the operation of “the psycho-social dynamic of model and series”, he only leaves room for this process at the level of

the “secondary function” of objects [1 p. 140].1 _Finally,

it seems that to him the privileged instantiation of personalization is the process during which art works attain their metaphysical value. But this model applies to industrial artifacts only on rare occasions, such as the fictional one alluded to above where a user is hanging jeans on the wall in a place usually reserved for posters, prints or paintings.

However, the standard situations in everyday life with their numerous, trivial examples of people making use of objects in their doings, are no more than hinted at in Baudrillard. In everyday life tools, articles of furniture and clothing, etc. continuously afford their assistance to their users and perform their function as expected and, at the same time, the objects in question are personal belongings that gradually receive traces of having been used or soiled. The effect of this daily intercourse is that the user-owner may be able to recognize the particular object – his or her object - among hundreds of similar objects. Eventually, in everyday life the process of ‘personalization’ is not least a material one. Second, and in order to proceed from this point, what is missing in Baudrillard’s essayistic reasoning is a more focused discussion of actual processes of

1 _{This argument is very} similar to Roland Barthes’ distinction between ‘denotation’ and ‘connotation’ [14 p. 89].

personalization. The determinations and definitions offered in the text are merely abstract semiological references to t systems of differences as the cultural system. Such a discussion could have been informed by ethnographies of groups and individuals. In relation to jeans, a number of such ethnographies have been published recently along with cultural histories of exemplary cases within the framework of the international research project, Global Denim [4]. The absence of a more elaborate strategy of how to get valid knowledge of the processes in which things are being personalized, has as its consequence that Baudrillard does not really provide a methodological framework for addressing how, where, when, and why these processes of appropriation are accomplished.

Another keyword for such processes is ‘singularization’, as suggested by anthropologist Igor Kopytoff in his contribution to Appadurai’s seminal book on the social and cultural trajectories of commodities [5, pp. 64-91]. In his search for a symbolical economy (or “moral economy” as he writes) behind the monetary framework of exchange, Kopytoff discusses the processes of commoditization and de- or recommoditization, and his general point is that the decommoditization is a precondition of singularization, a process which implies that objects are “culturally

redefined”.2 _{Not the change of status per se, nor}

change as such is enough to allow for the singularization to take place [5, p. 67]. The social position of

singularized objects is due to the fact of “being pulled out of their usual commodity sphere” [5, p. 74], hence the objects have become “priceless”, meaning either “uniquely valuable” or “uniquely worthless” [5, p. 75]. There are several forms of decommoditization and singularization, both public and private – from a state enforcing singularization of places, buildings, and objects – via change of status by social groups to the common consumer using applications or other alterations to single out, say, a pair of jeans.

According to Kopytoff’s analysis the logic behind this is that in complex, capitalist and heterogenous societies the in-build and dominant tendency of the market economy is to subjugate and commodizise whatever can be turned into marketable entities. On the other hand, Kopytoff states:

There is clearly a yearning for singularization in complex societies. Much of it is satisfied individually, by private singularization, often on principles as mundane as the fate of heirlooms and old slippers alike – the longevity of the relation assimilates them in some sense to the person and makes parting from them unthinkable [5, p. 80].

The ‘assimilation’ issue in relation to singularization is of special interest in the present context. Singularization is not necessarily the same as privatization. The inter- twining of persons and objects may reflect general cultural patterns, for instance when specific groups or classes of objects for some reason or another are conventionalized as signs of a social category, once named status symbolism. Singularization concerns not only the kind of assimilation Kopytoff points at in the above quote, but includes also the social dynamics of singling out objects as something special and of invaluable importance to national heritage, cultural identity, etc. In this case, singularization is effected by use of various forms of power based on the possession of necessary amounts of a relevant type of capital - political, economic, social, cultural, rhetorical, etc. All this is actually included in Kopytoff’s grounded theorizing, but the core question of how, where, when, by and for whom things are singularized is only answered in general terms, while instantiations are what they are, namely concrete ethnographies that do not add up to a proper theoretical stand, nor do they outline methodological strategies that may stimulate further scrutiny of the double and triple statuses of objects. What will be the concern in the remaining part of this paper is, firstly, the theoretical issues of how to identify what may be termed the status stratification of serial objects; next, this theoretical framework will be applied to the case of jeans, not in the shape of concrete ethnographies, but of an analytical model. And finally, the possible role of design (the design process) will be addressed speculatively. In this connection it is worth noting that neither Baudrillard, nor Kopytoff are focusing the fact that the objects they talk about, the consumer’s commodities in the market and the user’s personal belongings, are not reflected as forms the character of which has been suggested or determined by a form-giver, a designer.

The theoretical framework to be introduced briefly and applied more or less schematically to the issues of model and series is Charles S. Peirce’s sign theory.

2 _{It is Kopytoff who} introduces the term ‘commoditization’ (with various prefixes). This spelling will not be questioned here, though other writers (including the present writer) prefer ‘commodification’.