UMI - Buzz Tone & Volume Expander

cred: effectsdatabase/rafmax

UMI - Treble-Bass Booster & Mute

cred: effectsdatabase.com/rafmax

shape & fetish

On first sight it might seem that there can be found two opposed aproaches to the shape of objects, which are:

First, the preference of sober, straight, functional, economic and efficient shapes; ergonomic shapings could be barely tolerated. Pictures and coloures on the surfaces already could be received as kitsch and as a threat to the purity of the object. In complete disregard of the exterior appearance of the object, the pretended focus is totally on function, material quality, perfect construction, technical achievment etc.

Second, there are things that might occur distractful, oppulent, fancy, weird, baroque, exaggerated, distracting, in disguise etc.; shapings which obviously neglect the original function of the object and tend to accumulate fetishised qualities. Non-functionality is the least feature of such one.

Meanwhile, some human conditions have to be accepted: The first spatial encounter between subject (man) and object is mostly visual and haptic. So the visual or haptic impact an object can have is a key-position that affects the further relationship between e.g. user and tool.

Any interaction between human and world is never just purely economic, but always also symbolic. This so until we have an exhaustive treatise on the economy of symbolic actions...*

One possible conclusion: Straight functional economic shapings are NOT completely ‘empty’ or void of redundant meanigs, like it might seem on first sight. They are technoid fetishes, shapings of a cult that are mainly invisible for it’s followers.

* The flux between economic and symbolic values remains quite a mystery. It legitimates the existence of the art market as a test area.