Extra Thoughts on Identity Through Possessions

According to Lawrence, house forms, interior decorations and personal possessions are mediums enabling people to articulate their interpretations of their identity and how they relate to others in the same household and to friends and strangers.  If this is true, how then does a blind-person perceive these interpretations?  Furthermore, how would a blind person’s home have been utilized to show his/her visitors their identity through their personal possessions, etc.? Would there be any significant difference?  Would a blind person rely on their other senses to draw information about a particular person – what they hear, smell, and taste would be the information they digested about their identity.  And, if that is the case, would they rely on those senses to help convey their identity to visitors of their own home?  Instead of making sure they had a wonderful arrangement of photographs on their wall, for instance, would they instead rely on fragrant flowers?

Sources:

Lawrence, R.J. (1987). Social, Spatial and Temporal Factors.  In M. Taylor and J. Preston (Eds.) (2006) Intimus: Interior Design Theory Reader. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Click image to reach source.

Filed under: Theory, object attachment, object meaning, possessions, the value of things

Place Attachment and the Value of Things

During class today two of my classmates presented on the topic of Place Attachment and the Value of Things.  It was an intriguing presentation and I really enjoyed our class discussion today.

According to our lesson, place attachment “is a set of feelings about a geographic location that emotionally binds a person to that place as a function of its role as a setting for experience.” Many of us are attached to places that have meaning to us.   Some of my places, past and present, for example are my parent’s home in Augusta, GA, the dogwood tree in the front yard that I could be found in almost every single day until the sun came down, and the back bar of my favorite pub.

Factors of Place Attachment:

• Time spent in the space with family/friends
• Familiarity (ex. finding light switches in the dark; it’s second nature)
• Routines and Rituals anchors people to their environments.
• Privacy allows us to be at ease
• Territoriality provides freedom for expression
• Personalization allows us to express our own style
• Possessions represent memories and can provide a sense of belonging

Do any of you have a routine unique to a certain place? Where I’m currently living temporarily, I have a few small routines.  For example, when I come home… I unlock the door, immediately place my keys in the basket right next to the door, close the door behind me and lock it. Then I take my purse or bag and place it on the same chair in the dining area.  After I do this, I walk towards the back of the condo, taking my coat off if I am wearing one and if I am I lay it on the bed, and then I come back to the front of the condo to get a drink from the kitchen.  I’ve noticed this that I usually do this without fail.  I imagine once I move into a place of my own that I will develop stronger routines – I will also have the benefit of several other factors!

Object attachment is an emotional attachment to someone or something in the environment.  Objects can have no meaning to somebody and be very meaningful to another.  Objects obtain meaning by several means including acquiring (a gift), associating (it’s associated with a person, place, event, etc.), perceiving, making,and self-presenting.  It’s interesting to note that possessions are not only utilitarian but are also a means of communication with oneself or others because they can convey information.  This information may be read as either positive or negative.  House forms, interior decoration and personal possessions are mediums enabling people to articulate their interpretation of their identity.

And what’s with the picture from Pixar’s movie “Up?” Well, during class today we watched a small clip from the movie that helped reinforce what we learned about the factors of place attachment.  It was so interesting to see it included in the movie – it was also torturous, too, because I’ve never seen the whole movie.  I plan to rent it very soon though!

Sources:

Caplan, R. (2005) The Way Things Mean. By Design: Why there are no locks on the bathroom doors in the Hotel Louis XIV and other object lessons, 2nd Edition. New York: Fairchild Publications. 51-79.

Herring-Dar, B. (1993) A Preliminary Study of the Process of Object Meaning, EDRA 24 Proceedings. Edmonton, OK: Environmental Design Research Association.

Lawrence, R.J. (1987). Social, Spatial and Temporal Factors. In M. Taylor and J. Preston (Eds.) (2006) Intimus: Interior Design Theory Reader. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Up movie (image)

Filed under: Theory, interior design, object attachment, object meaning, place attachment, possessions, the value of things