Our dear friend, and in a way, collaborator, Ivan Kolarić, also known as Author Live, recently gifted us a collage he created for our office.
The collage is titled "Benedetta Wants to Sit/Benedetta Chooses," and what we’ll particularly focus on is the message it conveys – the curse of choice.
Author Live, Ivan Kolarić, who completed his studies in Serbian literature at the Faculty of Philosophy and has been sharing with us his interpretations of various philosophers, including Roland Barthes and Michel Foucault, for years, inspired us to delve deeper into the theme of choice in the field we work in – interior design.
Barthes' idea of the “death of the author“ prompted us to think about the “death of authentic choice,“ where our aesthetic and spatial decisions are not merely expressions of individual will, but part of a broader narrative shaped by social norms and cultural patterns.
Foucault's analysis of power helped us understand how these choices become a means of normalization, shaped by subtle social mechanisms that guide us toward certain standards and rules.
Ivan Kolarić's collage, seemingly simple and straightforward, carries a deeper philosophical reflection. The question of the “curse of choice“ calls for an exploration of how choices shape subjectivity and social dynamics.
The framework of our everyday life becomes inscribed with a network of choices, where each choice reflects a complex text, with recognizable signs creating the illusion of freedom. Every choice is already predetermined, hidden within the structure of meanings offered to us.
The “curse of choice“ can be interpreted as a phenomenon of disciplinary power that operates through subtle mechanisms of control and normalization.
Every choice we make is not a true manifestation of our free will, but the result of patterns and values imposed by society. Our perception of choice becomes a product of social norms, where we are no longer free individuals, but are shaped according to these norms.
In the context of interior design, this concept can manifest through the seemingly endless possibilities of choice in creating a space, where every selection of material, color, or layout is part of a broader discourse that shapes our aesthetic and functional preferences.
Here, we can observe a paradox: while we are offered the illusion of infinite freedom, we are actually caught in a web of predetermined choices that distance us from authenticity.
Thus, the “curse of choice“ in interior design is not merely a matter of aesthetic preferences, but a deeply rooted process through which power and control are expressed. It becomes clear that choice is not freedom, but a trap, where every decision contains traces of the social, cultural, and economic forces that shape our environment and, indirectly, ourselves.
Let’s imagine a scenario where someone wants to redesign their living room.
In the world of contemporary interior design, we are bombarded with countless styles, materials, and colors, from Scandinavian minimalism and industrial design to the modern Japandi style.
At first glance, this seems like a vast expanse of free choice, an opportunity to express our unique personality through the space we create. However, when we analyze this process more deeply, it becomes clear that this sense of freedom is an illusion.
Let’s start with a specific example: a person is deciding between two popular styles—minimalist and boho. At first glance, both styles appear to be open options, a result of their taste and preferences. However, these “preferences“ are already shaped by cultural discourses that dominate the media, social networks, and trends imposed by designers and furniture manufacturers.
Through Roland Barthes' perspective, we can say that both styles are texts filled with meaning, signs that refer to specific values—minimalism carries connotations of sophistication and tranquility, while boho style evokes ideas of freedom and creative chaos. But as Barthes reminds us, these meanings are not inherent; they are socially constructed and produced within specific frameworks of power.
From Foucault's perspective, the choice between these two styles is not just a matter of taste but an act of normalization. The decision about interior style is already rooted in systems of meaning that promote certain values and standards while excluding others.
For example, the minimalist style, with its focus on purity and order, can be seen as part of broader social processes that value efficiency and rationality, while boho style supports a discourse of individuality, but only within boundaries that are acceptable and commercially viable.
Ultimately, the final result is not a space that reflects true individuality, but one that fits into pre-existing patterns and power structures that dictate what is “right“ and “desirable“ in contemporary society.
Avoiding the traps of the “curse of choice“ in interior design requires a critical understanding of the forces shaping our decisions. The key is to question our own desires and preferences, as well as to analyze the trends that often influence our choices.
The first step is the deconstruction of our functional affinities, followed by aesthetic ones. We ask ourselves whether we truly appreciate minimalist design for its functionality or if we are influenced by trends on social media. Understanding hidden meanings and influences helps us realize how much of our desires are genuinely our own.
Resistance to norms and the rule of not fitting into dominant discourses can be liberating. Experimenting with layouts and elements that reflect our true needs and lifestyle can lead to the creation of a space that is uniquely ours.
Authenticity can be achieved by personalizing a space with elements of personal significance, such as sentimental items or handmade pieces. Rejecting the need to choose between predefined options, by introducing eclectic elements, can allow for the freedom of creative expression.
Creating an authentic space requires not only aesthetic but also philosophical reflection.
Thus, inspired by Barthes and Foucault, each space becomes an act of resistance, a place where power is transformed and personal freedom and expression are empowered.
In his collage “Benedetta Wants to Sit,” Ivan Kolarić invites active participation. By removing the distance between the observer and the art, Kolarić provokes involvement, allowing us to make the choice for Benedetta ourselves.
This act, not immediately visible, transforms the collage into an artistic act. In this way, the creative process shifts from observation to direct participation, giving the collage a new dimension as a work of art.
Author of the text:
Nevena Vujasinović
Hozzászólások